Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 9:26 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Also, just to add my 2 cents... it was indeed announced from Lucasfilm that official canon is the first 6 STAR WARS films and THE CLONE WARS TV series. Period, end of story, no amount of bitching by whiny older fanboys will make a difference. Listen, the new Episode VII looks to be enough of a 70's nostalgia trip that should hopefully satisfy that older fan demographic, but just because some of them may not like the prequels doesn't mean they should be erased from existence. I am an old-school fan in my 40's who really likes the prequels and CLONE WARS TV series and am glad they continue to be part of the saga.

I see this attitude from the older fans (in other franchises as well) that just because they don't like a specific installment or aspect of their favorite series, then it should vanish and be enjoyed by no one. It's essentially a temper tantrum. Specifically with STAR WARS, there is an entire younger generation of fans who were brought into the fold through the prequel era and it matters to them. Therefore it matters to the franchise, to Lucasfilm and to Disney. It's not going to be whisked away because some of the over-40 demo crowd didn't dig it. Many fans did, however, so it's all here to stay.

Art is always subjective. What doesn't work for you, might work for me and that's valid. If I connected to the prequels but some fans didn't doesn't mean that the latter group gets to decide whether the movies are valid or not.


Well put. Couldn't have said it better.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 9:27 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

JJ will be on steroids when it comes to Star Wars if Star Trek is any indication. I expect tons of buffoonery, Jar Jar Binks off spring, endless action sequences, coupled with a nonsensical plot. (And a cameo by Scotty's little alien friend)

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 11:20 AM   
 By:   Dan Hobgood   (Member)

I feel like the movies could have benefitted from a major villain who was present and active through the trilogy . As it was, Darth Maul was killed after basically three scenes (and as many lines), and then there was basically no villain at all until Dooku is revealed 3/4 of the way through the next movie. He is then killed ~15 minutes into the third movie, right around the part General Grievous is introduced and killed 1/4 of a movie later. I know that there is an overarching villain in the Emperor, but he didn't really do anything villainous besides pop up a handful of times and act menacing - until halfway through the last movie.

Without a central drive, an us vs. them narrative, the trilogy was really kind of aimless IMO. I liked an awful lot of the stuff in the movies well enough, but it's hard for me to call the movies good as a whole.


Nothing against Christopher Lee, but Maul should have been the Darth Vader character through the point Dooku was killed. Darth Maul had a menacing quality the octogenarian Dooku never did. Maul could have left Kenobi for dead at the end of the first film, wounded the two Jedi at the end of the second film, and then "earned" a great villain's death in the last--setting up the Emperor's need for a new apprentice. Dooku just felt like he came out of nowhere. Stupid (like a lot about "Star Wars," alas).

Dan

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 12:44 PM   
 By:   Tom Servo   (Member)

Dear Tom Servo:

Lucasfilm is no longer "Luscasfilm". It all belongs to Disney now

Just so's ya know!

Me


Lucasfilm Ltd was acquired by Disney, but as a company was not dissolved. They are a part of Disney, in the same way that Marvel is now. You can say that "Marvel released a statement" or "Lucasfilm made a statement" and it still carries weight. Each of them can still enact creative and business decisions, they're just under the Disney banner now. Kathleen Kennedy as president of Lucasfilm, reports to Disney chairman Alan Horn, but she can still make decisions for the Lucasfilm brand.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 3:04 PM   
 By:   jenkwombat   (Member)

It's essentially a temper tantrum.

LOL.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Couldn't have said it better myself. Basically, a fifteen year long temper tantrum.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 3:52 PM   
 By:   Warlok   (Member)

It's essentially a temper tantrum.

LOL.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Couldn't have said it better myself. Basically, a fifteen year long temper tantrum.


No, its valid criticism of theater. I guess to some people its both fun and fashionable - in a way that shows superior intellect and an arrogant maturity - to claim otherwise.

Its a tired old line.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 4:39 PM   
 By:   Tom Servo   (Member)

It's essentially a temper tantrum.

LOL.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Couldn't have said it better myself. Basically, a fifteen year long temper tantrum.


No, its valid criticism of theater. I guess to some people its both fun and fashionable - in a way that shows superior intellect and an arrogant maturity - to claim otherwise.

Its a tired old line.


Criticism in the theater is fine, but you are not the final decider on what is valid for all. I hate the habit that some take when judging entertainment, whether books, music, TV or film, in that their own reaction and opinion of it is akin to a judge rendering a verdict for everyone else. I'm tired of conversations where one person treats their own opinions like evidence in a murder trial and that they can "convict" said film of being invalid. Sorry, no one gets to tell me that my own emotional reaction or intellectual interest in a film doesn't count because the same film didn't affect them. Some factions in STAR WARS fandom essentially bully others because they like the prequels. The equivalent would be Trek fans bullying others for enjoying STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE. It's poor behavior, in my opinion.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 4:45 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

In the world of Star Wars fans, yes--you better believe there are temper tantrums.
The fact that there aren't any here is nice, but to deny they exist is silly.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 5:31 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

A curiosity for me is the Radio Dramas. They were previously considered as equal / canon as the first six films (as they were based off of the screenplays and were sanctioned by Lucas directly) back before the Disney merger... And now nothing.

It would be a shame to see them get thrown out, given they're better with characters (and some acting) than the original films.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2014 - 11:26 PM   
 By:   Michael Scorefan   (Member)



One of the clever aspects of the prequel trilogy and its villains is that they each represent an aspect of Anakin's character. Darth Maul represents his anger, Darth Tyrannus represents the fallen Jedi and General Grevious is the soon-to-be mechanical side of his being. I actually love the shifting roster of villains in the trilogy, especially Grevious. The narrative in the prequels is murkier and more complex than in the original trilogy, which is why a singular villain, other than Palpatine, may not have worked. It's not as clear cut and I love that aspect as well.


I had never thought of it that way about the villains from the prequels. I think you make a great point about that. I enjoy the prequels as well. I don't agree with, nor enjoy, every aspect of the films, but there are enough parts from the films that I enjoy that I can still happily watch them.

I can't imagine Disney will ever disavow the prequels. At least not until they reboot the whole series. For one thing, although the prequels can be polarizing among the fans, it isn't as if the films are an adaptation of a beloved series of novels or other source material and the films got it wrong. The films are the source material. The prequels as made are competing with the fantasy that many of us had in our heads for 16 years between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace. I doubt there is much anyone would agree on as to the details of what should have happened, other than we all wanted more films we love.

As LeHah said, Disney can easily make many, many Star Wars films while completely ignoring Jar Jar, midichlorians, and everything else about the prequels that make many fans groan. Episodes IV through VI cover only three major battles between the Rebels and the Empire, and spotlight just a handful of the Rebels and Imperials. There are still plenty of things they can do while focusing on and around the classic trilogy.

 
 
 Posted:   May 22, 2014 - 1:51 AM   
 By:   jenkwombat   (Member)

...its valid criticism of theater.

Pretending *half* of something doesn't exist is "valid criticism of theater"?

 
 
 Posted:   May 22, 2014 - 2:24 AM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

A curiosity for me is the Radio Dramas. They were previously considered as equal / canon as the first six films (as they were based off of the screenplays and were sanctioned by Lucas directly) back before the Disney merger... And now nothing.

It would be a shame to see them get thrown out, given they're better with characters (and some acting) than the original films.


I grew up on the radio dramas. I loved them and the way they expanded on a universe that was well worn for me (in film form)

But the cracks in their continuity began to show with the prequels. I agree it's a shame that they are no longer considered canon.

As an aside - I HATE the prequels with a passion but do not deny anyone's right to like them. However, if there is ever a "Special Edition" version of the prequels which removes all mention of midi-chlorians.....(in the vein of Greedo shooting first)....then I may reconsider them..

 
 Posted:   May 23, 2014 - 1:59 PM   
 By:   Warlok   (Member)

...its valid criticism of theater.

Pretending *half* of something doesn't exist is "valid criticism of theater"?


No. Offering up **reasons** for ignoring them is. Which is what I and many others have done. Pretending half of something doesn`t exist is the agitated hoped-for action tabled *utilizing* those reasons/criticisms.

And as far as being declarative, yes, I speak that way. I will not preface everything I say with "In my opinion." Thats already inherent. I see far less wrong with that than with continually and reliably categorizing anyone who loves the original films, not the new ones, and is vocal about it as nerds or worse (though the light of such casting makes worse a hard thing to ponder), and to then take whatever traits "nerds" supposedly possess and use such as negatively cast foundations for ridicule and belittling.

I really don`t care if someone has life-size Vaders in their home, or if they dress up to attend fan conventions. I hardly perceive/consider that to be grounds for dismissal or relegation to triviality & condecension. If people are logical, they are logical. It is when they are not that I take them to task.

I don`t see these labels of nerd-dom or fanboyishness or other similar juvenilities being bandied about in order to diminish those who offer criticisms of the wisdom to make a sequel to Bladerunner, right or wrong, or of those who cringe at the prospect of countless remakes of classics.

As for "15 years of whining" (paraphrasing), it is simply apt to mention such valid theatrical criticisms & sensibilities given the rekindling of Star Wars film production. On the eve of such. Is that a bad thing, I wonder? Ought it not be done?...

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.