StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Yeah we did, because it disbanding the Senate was the whole point of building the Death Star and told us where Leia is coming from with her plucky comments to Tarkin.

I see what you are saying, but there is a difference between showing me a technical schematic of the world which is what the prequels did, giving the up front abstract so that the things I am watching make sense like the OT, and telling me almost nothing so I don't know enough to care like TFA.

Col. Crackpot wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:When Shep and Elfdart are mostly in agreement; the apocalypse is near.

Oh for shits sake, not you too!

Shep and I also agreed about "No Country For Old Men", seeing it for the pile of shit it was no matter how many critics wallowed in it.

Guardsman Bass wrote:Now that Elfdart has described it as little better than the Holiday Special, I want to hear his broader thoughts on it. He's defended the prequels pretty vigorously in the past.

I'm not sure if I should post it here or in the spoilers thread. For now, let's just say that Pat Boone has nothing on J.J. Abrams when it comes to bastardizing the creative works of others:

Well, Abrams certainly fucked up Star Trek beyond recognition. But somehow he paradoxically managed to make a Star Wars movie which is more "Star Wars"-y than anything Lucas ever did.

More Star Warsy than ANH?

It's not a paradox that he managed to channel Star Wars since he has admitted several times that when he was making Star Trek he really wanted to be making Star Wars.

Galvatron wrote:More Star Warsy than ANH?

Well, let's say... more Star Wars-y than anything except ANH and ESB. I think TFA is composed of at least 10,000 cubic SNUs (Star Wars Nostalgia Units), whereas ANH has like 12,000, and ESB has 15,000. ROTJ has say, 8,000, and the Prequels unfortunately are in the negative. Note that SNU count does not always correlate with overall quality.

Elfdart wrote:For now, let's just say that Pat Boone has nothing on J.J. Abrams when it comes to bastardizing the creative works of others:

Why are you letting Lawrence Kasdan off the hook? Or is he bastardizing his own work?

Channel72 wrote:

Elfdart wrote:For now, let's just say that Pat Boone has nothing on J.J. Abrams when it comes to bastardizing the creative works of others:

Why are you letting Lawrence Kasdan off the hook? Or is he bastardizing his own work?

Don't expect him to give anyone but Lucas credit for the success of the OT. As he recently said...

Elfdart wrote:So who, exactly was going to create the characters and story other than George Lucas? Gary Kurtz, who contributed zilch to the creative side of any movie he's credited with? Irvin Kershner, who never made a movie that wasn't based on someone else's work? Lawrence Kasdan, who has never done anything novel, let alone original? The studio? Yes, let's make Lucas vanish and put it in the hands of 20th Century Fox, letting suits make the creative decisions.

You'd have had a new Star Wars movie every six months with Scott Baio as Luke's streetwise cousin, and Frank Stallone singing.

Patroklos wrote:You could just not have a Vader clone. Like maybe an original villain who is evil in a different way. I agree with you, if you insist on rewriting the same villian again you were not going to beat OT Vader. They couldn't even write an appropriate origin story worthy of him for fucks sake. Again I am not too down on Driver or his character, but he is is the personification of realizing you can't outdo Vadar so you intentionally make him a fake Vader. JUST DON'T HAVE A VADER. Its been done before in Star Wars with characters like Thrawn and Pelleaon and Isaard (I don't personnaly like her, but others do).

Oh come on. Do you really think a Star Wars film is going to be carried by some stiff in an Admiral's uniform? Star Wars has always been about generational family drama. Its immensely compelling material, and some villain from an EU novel is never, ever going to carry that load. People are assigning outsize credit to inferior villains whose only saving grace is that they gave us new Star Wars material while the movies were gone.

Kylo Ren / Ben has a perfectly serviceable origin story as it stands - leaving aside that at this stage we know next to nothing about it, just like we knew little and less about Vader's origin story in Episode 4.

Galvatron wrote:I actually agree with Elfdart that Williams phoned it in for TFA. It was one of the things that annoyed me.

I too concur. I think that one of the great things about this new trilogy is that it's Star Wars being made by a new generation of filmmakers, actors, and so on. The great modern mythology that is SW is being passed on to others, so that they can relate the saga in their own way. I'd prefer they replaced every major contributor, from actors, to writers, to composers.

I expect the spin-offs will have new composers and very few musical cues from the OT just to make them feel Star Warsy. Like the KOTOR soundtrack.

True, I expect them to go every which way with the spinoff films. But having Abrams/Johnson/Trevorrow, who make films that look like 2015, but having Williams score them like it was 1977 ago creates an odd dissonance.

I get that there was probably a lot of pressure from above, but I think its to the detriment of the film series.

That's why I want Howard Shore. Hans Zimmer is all wrong for this series, but Shore is still at the top of his game. By all means, use the shit out of the classic themes to give us our fix, but the new characters deserve new themes of their own.

Vympel wrote:Oh come on. Do you really think a Star Wars film is going to be carried by some stiff in an Admiral's uniform? Star Wars has always been about generational family drama.

In 1985 the Alien franchise had always been about a slasher movie in space. The idea that Star Wars has to be about father and son fighting each other is the same nonsense as the idea that Star Wars has to be about blowing up some planet-killing death ball.

I'm sorry, but after re watching TPM today for the first time in years ( bought my boys the complete saga on blue ray for Christmas) I can honestly say that anyone who thinks ranks TFA below TPM is a fucking retard. That means you Shep and Elfdart.

Col. Crackpot wrote:I'm sorry, but after re watching TPM today for the first time in years ( bought my boys the complete saga on blue ray for Christmas) I can honestly say that anyone who thinks ranks TFA below TPM is a fucking retard. That means you Shep and Elfdart.

What about AOTC or ROTS?

Galvatron wrote:

Col. Crackpot wrote:I'm sorry, but after re watching TPM today for the first time in years ( bought my boys the complete saga on blue ray for Christmas) I can honestly say that anyone who thinks ranks TFA below TPM is a fucking retard. That means you Shep and Elfdart.

What about AOTC or ROTS?

I'll tell you tomorrow. Right now I've had too much wine and I'm about to tear into a Terry's Chocolate Orange.

The only thing I'm conflicted about currently is whether I rank RotS above or below TFA. AotC and TPM are so far below TFA its not even funny. RotS has always been unfairly lumped with TPM and AotC, as far as I'm concerned.

Vympel wrote:The only thing I'm conflicted about currently is whether I rank RotS above or below TFA. AotC and TPM are so far below TFA its not even funny. RotS has always been unfairly lumped with TPM and AotC, as far as I'm concerned.

RotS is hands down the best of the Prequel trilogy... and a very good film period. I'll watch it again this weekend but I'm still fairly certain that TFA is a notch above. Maybe it's Daisy Ridley and John Boyega... There is a chemistry in this film that the PT lacked.

Col. Crackpot wrote:RotS is hands down the best of the Prequel trilogy...

"Experience the best Star Wars prequel...by default."

There was a fan edit of AotC called "Army of the Republic", which uses a lot of the deleted scenes and some re-edits to improve it quite a bit. I recommend watching it if you get the opportunity... it really improves the movie's flow and cuts out some of the most cringe-worthy parts.

Vympel wrote:The only thing I'm conflicted about currently is whether I rank RotS above or below TFA. AotC and TPM are so far below TFA its not even funny. RotS has always been unfairly lumped with TPM and AotC, as far as I'm concerned.

Meh... it's lumped in with TPM and AOTC because unfortunately, it's still forced to carry all the shitty baggage from the previous films. No matter how awesome the plot of ROTS is, we're still stuck with whiny Anakin and shitty acting/dialogue. Plus, ROTS is forced to quickly run through all the character development that the previous two films were supposed to have already provided, especially in terms of showing Anakin and Obi-Wan as actual friends, so that there's actually some serious emotional payoff when Anakin betrays his master. Since TPM and AoTC really never bothered showing any of that, it's up to ROTS to quickly cram in some Anakin/Obi-Wan friendship building scenes in the first few minutes. But it's really too-little, too-late at that point.

Channel72 wrote:

Vympel wrote:The only thing I'm conflicted about currently is whether I rank RotS above or below TFA. AotC and TPM are so far below TFA its not even funny. RotS has always been unfairly lumped with TPM and AotC, as far as I'm concerned.

Meh... it's lumped in with TPM and AOTC because unfortunately, it's still forced to carry all the shitty baggage from the previous films. No matter how awesome the plot of ROTS is, we're still stuck with whiny Anakin and shitty acting/dialogue. Plus, ROTS is forced to quickly run through all the character development that the previous two films were supposed to have already provided, especially in terms of showing Anakin and Obi-Wan as actual friends, so that there's actually some serious emotional payoff when Anakin betrays his master. Since TPM and AoTC really never bothered showing any of that, it's up to ROTS to quickly cram in some Anakin/Obi-Wan friendship building scenes in the first few minutes. But it's really too-little, too-late at that point.

And after re watching the full PT I stand by my statement that TFA is far superior to the whole of the PT. I dare anyone to watch Hayden Christiansen for 5 minutes a d then complain about Adam Driver.

The PT just aged poorly. Wow the CGI looks terrible now. Less is more and TFA demonstrates that well, and it will age better because of it.

Its a consequence of going in on a non-mature technology/methodology. It should be remembered that ANH was revolutionary step forward in practical set/model design and the next two were basically in the golden age of that world. If you go back 20 years and look at physical sets for anything fantasy or scifi related you will note how badly they aged.

But with ANH I think the limitations were understood ( in 1977) and they made it work. It looked good for a long time... While there are some very good scenes, parts of the PT look like a Babylon 5 re run.

There are a couple of shitty effects in the OT - the matte painting of the Falcon in the Hangar Bay in ROTJ is pretty bad, and some shots of the Falcon fleeing Star Destroyers in ANH look obviously composited. The Rancor green-screen effect sucks also. These are the sort of things which should have been fixed in the Special Edition, rather than the new footage they added. (Although I like the new Cloud City footage, to be honest.)

As for the Prequels, Coruscant always looks pretty good at night. What has really aged badly is the CGI clonetroopers, and most of the day-time CGI landscapes, like Geonosis and Utapau. They really look like video games at this point. The whole sequence with Obi Wan chasing Grievous while riding a lizard is just utterly horrible. They may as well have just added a life-meter and score on the upper right of the screen.