Star Wars - 32 years on

faceman

i watched Star Wars (episode 4) in full for the first time since the re-released DVD and i have to admit been taken aback by the shambles of a movie it is at times.

Dont get me wrong, I love star wars, I grew on it. But for whatever reason when watching it this time, I couldnt get out of my head that this is an amateur film with terrible acting at times. Even Alec Guinness made me laugh on one occasion when he started walking with his Jedi hood up. He looked like an alco skanger!

I can finally admit tho that much of the added CGI footage is pretty poor.

Im not trying to this the film. I guess what im saying is that it has aged terrible and were i watching it for the first time nowadays, it wouldnt be getting 5 stars. sad really, given how much of an influence it had in my early life.

Sleazus

Yep, but I think that any effects-driven film suffers with time. If you showed 1932's King Kong to a modern audience, they'd describe it as craptastic or something similar.

I think Star Wars is what it is not because of what is on the screen (it is very ropey at times), but because of the pop cultural moment it represents - people of a generation remember seeing it as kids and I was lucky enough to have the same experience thanks to the cinematic re-release in the 1990s. I don't think any movie has had so wide an effect on so many youngsters.

johnny_ultimate

Sleazus wrote: »

I think Star Wars is what it is not because of what is on the screen (it is very ropey at times), but because of the pop cultural moment it represents - people of a generation remember seeing it as kids and I was lucky enough to have the same experience thanks to the cinematic re-release in the 1990s. I don't think any movie has had so wide an effect on so many youngsters.

That would be my view on Star Wars these days too. It is hard to see Star Wars as a film without taking in the phenomenon it has become - few franchises have such ridiculous staying power, and the cult around it often overwhelms the content (indeed, it is fascinating how it remains popular when such a low amount of quality content has been produced since the 80s - a few decent games is about it IMO, although the more hardcore fans will likely disagree!).

I do agree with Faceman that the film itself isn't all it has cracked up to be. Last time I watched Star Wars (around a year ago) in the re-released original version I found myself getting bored a few times. Not all that much happens for the first half of Episode IV, and I would consider parts of the Tatooine segment pretty dull. But this isn't what people remember about the film. I think the mythology captures the imagination of younger viewers - the central coming of age story and good-v-evil battle are universal themes that are easy to relate to. Plus there are the characters (Han Solo is a truly classic hero) and the iconography (I personally still think lightsabers are a kick ass weapon, and elements like the music/opening crawl are very memorable).

As a film, it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny - as you say, dreadful acting, aged effects, a simplistic plot, horrible dialogue and slightly wonky pacing. But it has some great ideas, and as a kid it was a wonderful watch. Perhaps it isn't even worth analysing in-depth though. Star Wars is something to watch as a kid, and what child isn't won over by sharp talking heroes, menacing villains and 'awesome' (to use a horrible but appropriate word) lightsabers? And I think that is why it is remembered fondly, and the sequels so huge at the time.

foxyboxer

ah but no matter how it ages, John Williams' score will always be fantastic.

You go, London Symphony Orchestra!!

mike65

Star Wars was never a classic of any sort except box-office. The effects were clearly inferior to those of say CE3K and Alien at the time never mind the cardboard thin plotting and charactisation. How it cleaned up the technical Acadamy Awards (bar two or three) beat me then and still does.

keefg

mike65 wrote: »

Star Wars was never a classic of any sort except box-office. The effects were clearly inferior to those of say CE3K and Alien at the time never mind the cardboard thin plotting and charactisation. How it cleaned up the technical Acadamy Awards (bar two or three) beat me then and still does.

:eek: There's a special place in hell for people like you, never have I heard such blasphemy .

TBH, I am well aware of how bad SW is but I saw ESB in the pictures as a kid and it blew me away. I have been a fan since.....well, not so much the new ones.

mike65

I saw SW and Close Encounters 'back to back' in 1978, one blew me away the other had gone from my mind about 30 seconds after the lights came up. I saw CE3K again recently and its aged in some respects (esp the slightly hippy undertow) but its still got that something which made it better 30 years ago - human emotion underpining the visuals.

Lirange

My favourite of the films has always been ESB. But Star Wars was very different from anything else before it when it came out and those features that weren't innovative were never realised to that extent in film. Elaborate ideas of aliens, extra terrestrial settlement, etc was considered B movie material. Star Wars proved it not only commercially viable but catapulted the genre. Not only in cinemas but on the TV screen. The short lived Star Trek tv series with all it's attendant hamminess and underdeveloped aliens was undermined by industry skepticism in the late 60s.

As far as acting sure there was nothing Oscar calibre. Yet Han Solo and Leia were great characters. Ford established a new sci-fi archetype, the reluctant hero with the acerbic wit. Would we have a Capt. Mal Reynolds today without Han Solo? Fisher broke from the staid women in distress cliche with her cutting comments taking the piss out of Han and Chewy. Such roles had been considered a no-no for the genre. 2001 a space Odyssey was a fabulous film but the characters were about as vacuous as David Copperfield in David Copperfield. The character with the most depth was a computer. But again the journey of humanity was the story arch so it wasn't vital. Shatner though having a rep for being a funny man today had to play it so straight that the character was known for overacting and any resulting humour wasn't intentional (but yes Capt. Kirk is loved for it). Star Wars was a fully realised space western where the villians could also be cast into a ready made allegory of the Nazis or Communists. On it's heels came a wave of sci fi series and films. The genre would be nothing like it is today without Star Wars.

TheDoc

Definitely aged badly.

I'm of a younger age then most of you lot, so for me I saw episodes 4-6 along time after they were released.

The first 3 episodes I saw in cinema and I personally find them more entertaining then the old ones in every aspect, more interesting story, better characters, the lightsabre duels are far far far superior.

projectmayhem

Timely thread, as Lucas is looking at making a new trilogy pending the success of Avatar. Yep, 3D star wars. He also only wants to produce, and have Coppola and Speilberg take the helm.

Sleazus

Well, so the rumour goes anyway - LucasArts were apparently fairly quick in denying it when asked for comment.

I remain skeptical. Though maybe it does fit - he remastered the old trilogy with new technology before making the new one with all those special effects, and he's currently remastering the old ones into 3D, so maybe he is planning a 3rd 3d trilogy.

That's a lot of 3's...

faceman

3D movies are over-rated, and over priced IMO

Lame Lantern

I desperately want to give George Lucas more of my money if he'll just allow the pre-whoframedrogerrabbit trilogy to be released. All the CGI looks awful and Greedo shooting first (in the future with a walkie talkie?) is beyond all previously discovered levels of stupid.

BlitzKrieg

Never thought much of the first star wars film personnally.

But I come from the generation where all three films were always tied together as *the trilogy* and I get the impression, the fondness for the original trilogy today comes more from people like me and those in the similar age group rather then the rose tinted memory ones who were there on opening night for the first film, I didnt see star wars in the cinema til 1997, and even then I had to see it as a marathon of all three films in a row.

I actually defended the first prequel film when it came out to my friends when I argued that we were so fond of the first star wars film because it was a piece of an overall storyline that we all knew so well. While phantom menace was essentially an incomplete piece of a new trilogy (but the remaining two films were so much worse that phantom ended up being the best of the three. And not in a good way*)

So when people bring up all the problems of star wars, I nod and go *I know*

But Empire kicks ass

and despite the ewoks Jedi had some fantastic set pieces.

SO 32 years on, I look at it as a trilogy, like I have always done, and star wars is not great, but it touches on all the elements that people liked about star wars in small details, and it isnt until Empire that it dives into the deep end and starts delivering the goods.

32 years ago its the start of a beautiful friendship

but still only the start


*I would probably rate revenge of the sith as the worse of the prequel trilogy personnally, mostly because it was so damn hard to f*ck it up, but somehow it got f*cked. And after two films the only lesson learnt was not have jar jar speak...

Theboinkmaster

I'd agree perhaps star wars doesn't hold up however empire strikes back is still a masterpiece IMO and the effects stand up very well by today's standards.

chopperbyrne

Jedi is the best by far.

Klingon Hamlet

A New Hope is the least watchable because it seems the most amateurish. Lucas was never a great director or dialogue-writer (I believe he got some help with the script, plus Harrisson et all added a few touches) but overall it's a jumpy, stop-start film that has a nice plotline but with shaky pacing.

The pacing of Empire Strikes Back is the primary reason it still stands today as one of the greatest sequels of all time. There's a roomful of scenarios all thrown together seamlessly and we follow two completely different plotlines---the Jedi training and the Falcon-on-the-run---with equal interest. Best bits: the awesome asteroid chase with that rousing Williams fanfare, along with the first part of the Skywalkers' face-to-face confrontation.

Return of the Jedi is a mixed bag. Closure with the Skywalker Legacy plus we get to see the Emporer weave his dark magic, but the Death Sat rehash is dull and the Ewoks are a cheap attempt at sucking in new younger audiences. The inter-ship battles over Endor still look great (especially thanks to ILM's recent line-removal on the matted models---still superior to cgi ships) and the hoverbike chase looks fake and great all at the same time.

But then you look at the new trilogy, and see why the old trilogy succeeded: its cast had more freedom and more charisms, plus Lucas had less power over the writing/directing side. The new trilogy was a shambles (I watched III and winced about twice a minute). Old trilogy FTW!

Richard Dower

Empire is the best by far....story, effects, everything. Lucas messed up...he should NEVER have made prequels, no the 1997 remasters that added crap.

meep

They are films for children.

I saw the original trilogy in the cinema as a child and was overwhelmed. I say the prequel trilogy as an adult and was underwhelmed.

I've recently watched all six in narrative order with my eight year old and she loves them to bits. She even cried at the end of Jedi, recognising the lost potential in Vader and real human tragedy of his character.

She's on her second pass through all 6 at them moment.

I'm not participating this time around but I do dip in on occasion and am always impressed with how they've cleaned up SW Ep IV for DVD release. The scene with Storm Troopers and Vader entering Lehia's shuttle near the start is as crisp and clean as if it's been filmed today. The sound on this particular film, however, is awful, particularly some very poor quality dialog (and I'm not talking about the hokey script).

Having said all that, I enjoyed watching them all back to back at quite a remove and was delighted to share them with my daughter.

Peter

Mr.Nice Guy

I never got into the Star Wars films as a kid I must say. I was more a fan of the Superman movies, Indiana Jones trilogy and the Back to the Future trilogy. I found the characters in Star Wars hard to warm too.

As I've gotten older I've come to appreciate it a bit more but I still regard it as being a vastly overrated series of films.

Richard Dower

I appreciate SW from a historical perspective, such as the technology, ILM and all that came after.
It was the first true blockbuster.

KTRIC

I have 4, 5, and 6 in full 1080P HD and they look rotten. The paint brush strokes on the suits are very visible. Its looking really dated now but still a magical movie.

Might be the reason it was never released officially in HD.

irish_bob

stone cold classic , thats not including anything released since 1999 i might add

krudler

KTRIC wrote: »

I have 4, 5, and 6 in full 1080P HD and they look rotten. The paint brush strokes on the suits are very visible. Its looking really dated now but still a magical movie.

Might be the reason it was never released officially in HD.

Thats the beauty of the SW universe though, where most other sci-fi movies set anything in space as clinical, pristine and unused, Star Wars was a dirty, beaten up, lived in universe, there are tons and tons of mistakes in the stormtrooper helmets and suits, Vaders helmet was never symmetrical either until Episode 3, SW is meant to be set after a galactic civil war so the fact it looks like a ****hole in most of the areas only adds to the charm, especially on the Tatooine scenes.

You can can what you like about the dialogue being hokey, Lucas not knowing how to direct actors, (hes said himself he directs in the editing room not on the set) the costumes and effects being dodgy, the story being a mish mash of other fantasy parts but it just works brilliantly, and Luke staring at the twin suns with that beautiful music playing is still one of those movie moments that no matter how many times I've seen it in the cinema, on tv, on video, on dvd and eventually on blu-ray it gives me goosebumps, it really sums up the effect movies are meant to have on us as an audience.

My dad saw it on release day over here back in late 77 or early 78,whenever it got its Irish release, and he said people hadnt heard much about this space movie aside from Mark Hamill doing an interview on the Late Late Show, but he told me when the blockade runner flew over the screen at the beginning the audience gasped, and when the Star Destroyer came over you could hear the air being sucked out of the cinema before people went absolutely nuts, and this is all of what, 30 seconds into the movie? Whether you like it or not, Star Wars changed everything, how movies are made, watched, effects, sound, digital editing, presentation, our expectations of what a blockbuster should be, and for all his shortcomings and accusations of milking his own creation for all its worth, its something everyone should thank George Lucas for

Arnold Layne

meep wrote: »

They are films for children.

I saw the original trilogy in the cinema as a child and was overwhelmed. I say the prequel trilogy as an adult and was underwhelmed.

I must agree. I watched the trilogy in the cinema as a child with my father and absolutley loved them. Of the prequels; only Revenge Of The Sith stands out as it lead into A New Hope. It was theonly prequel that I watched in teh cinema, again with my Dad.

I can remember running in the door of my house as a 6 or 7 year old trying to explain to my Mom the story and showing here the Star Wars cards and making a Sandperson by joing the back of the cards. Do you remember those
and the crap hard, powdered bubblegum.

Aah, the nostalgia.

jaykhunter

Star Wars is probably my favourite franchise of movies, but yeah, definitely, the classic trilogy really looks ropey at times. It annoys me that Lucas put in 2004 special effects some of the time. I understand he wanted to butcher the films so they'd all look the same, but he left in REALLY CRAP-LOOKING special effects (like when the rebels are looking at the blueprints to the death star)

If he wanted everything to seem seemless, he'd completely re-do the film (i.e. butcher it completely) and not have some Godless half-breed :)

I'm not being serious really. But I think if he's gonna add in special effects, he should re-do the whole thing or not at all. It annoyed me how Hayden Christensen was put into Episode 6. He never wore those clothes. What was wrong with the original film? Again I understand why Lucas did it, I just think it looks awful.

That said, I love all the movies, (well, except most of Episode 1 lol) and Episode 3 if one of my favourite films of all time.

eviltimeban

For me Episode 1 is the only one of the prequels that captures the spirit of the original trilogy. Its probably something to do with the pacing - its slow in places but takes its time to tell a story - and most of its appeal is down to Liam Neeson, who I still say was great in that role.

Anticipation was a lot to do with it alright, but I can't say I was ever disappointed by that movie. OK Jar Jar was annoying but after a time I grew to accept him. Jake Lloyd is also annoying in places but watch any kid in any movie and that's what they are like.

Anyway, back to the original point about SW being a shambles - I don't think so really. And it was hardly "amateur". Lucas had made American Graffiti and THX whatever before. And weren't all the actors experienced? I can't imagine the people responsible for the models or costumes were "amateurs" either. OK, its hard to take yourself away from the power it had over you as a kid, but sometimes movies are good because the sum of the parts - the overall MOVIE - far outweighs the parts themselves (acting or dialogue concerns).

I would say more so that SW had some GREAT lines of dialogue in it - especially from Han Solo and Leia's sparring. Some of it is BS - who knew that a parsec was actually a unit of distance rather than time! - but so what. I certainly wouldn't call it a shambles.

jaykhunter

I think you might be on your own there about Episode I. I agree, Liam Neeson is fantastic in the film. I just don't think the story is that good. I know that we get to see Annakin ("Little Annie" nice name btw) get recruited, leaving his mother and using the force, I just think it's a poor story that could've been done in a flashback --or better yet-- a prequel to the prequels in short-story/film terms :pac::pac::pac:

OK, I gotta rant about Star Wars Episode 1!!! (Apologies to the OP for hijacking this thread )

I hated (and still don't enjoy) the clumsy intrusive "comedy" that Jar-Jar brings. Darth Maul is really friggin' cool, but his arrival and part in the film is just too short. The whole 're-emergence of the sith'? Darth Maul saying "we're back" and that's about it. God-dammit. Weak!

I also don't care about Trade Blockades or everything Natalie Portman is doing. Her gunfight, Annakin's fighter-jet sequence, JamaiGungans vs the most useless droids we've ever seen in Star Wars, who cares.

I feel compelled to stop giving out and list some good things about the film

• Liam Neeson
• ObiWan does a good job too
• Darth Maul is badass
• Maul's fight scenes
• John Williams does an excellent job
• Driodicars are badass

You know what sucks?

• The storyline. Jesus, Trade blockades, child Annakin and the plight of the Gungans

• Midichlorians ares symbiotic microscopic beings -- that's bullsh-t. So can I get an electron microscope and isolate said beings? Great
• Annakin was conceived of the force (like Jesus) :rolleyes:
• Having to watch a bratty kid poorly act his way through circumstances nobody cares for (especially the ridiculously long Pod Race)
• The Ridiculously long Pod Race
• Everything Natalie Portman does on Naboo or otherwise
• The comedy droids are really, really weak (they suck)
• The Gungans
• Jar-Jar Binks.

That's all I have right now

BlitzKrieg

For me Episode 1 is the only one of the prequels that captures the spirit of the original trilogy. Its probably something to do with the pacing - its slow in places but takes its time to tell a story - and most of its appeal is down to Liam Neeson, who I still say was great in that role.

I'd agree to an extent, of the three I consider it the best, but I wouldnt go as far as saying it was good in any way, but it looked like star wars, it sounded like star wars it was just a very weak star wars.

There is alot of episode 1 though that is a bit of the new vs old. It was the last movie shot in film, something when you see episode 2 is blatantly obvious, hence why strangel of the three it is probably the best looking, cause by the time of episode 2, digital filmmaking hadnt been perfected so it just looked awful by default and while episode 3 improved on 2, it still wasnt as sharp as 1. Its also the last movie with extensive puppetry, most notable being yoda, the last movie to use the classic lightsaber process etc. And the only one of the prequels to have a good lightsaber battle.


Overall all the criticisms of one brought up by jaykhunter are very true, but the simple point is its the first of a trilogy, it had problems like A New Hope did. The difference is Empire Strikes back learnt those mistakes and fixed them...

While episode 2 and 3 well.

* The storyline. Jesus, Trade blockades, child Annakin and the plight of the Gungans

still quite apparant and extensive in 2 and 3. except for the gungans.

* Midichlorians ares symbiotic microscopic beings -- that's bullsh-t. So can I get an electron microscope and isolate said beings? Great

thankfully never mentioned again

* Annakin was conceived of the force (like Jesus)
* Having to watch a bratty kid poorly act his way through circumstances nobody cares for (especially the ridiculously long Pod Race)
* The Ridiculously long Pod Race
* Everything Natalie Portman does on Naboo or otherwise
* The comedy droids are really, really weak (they suck)

All accounted for and driven again and again in the sequels, with pod race replaced by (factory level/screaming parrot dragon/ridiculous cgi battles) Comedy droids got worse and worse, bratty kid became bratty teenager who still couldnt act. Natalie portman got more annoying and irrelevent and of course the prophecy got even more confusing and vague.

* The Gungans
* Jar-Jar Binks.

It took him two movies to finally decide not to have jar jar speak...

foxyboxer

...and they didn't even give Chewbacca a medal ! Boo-urns! Boo-urns! :pac:

deathstarkiller

For me Star Wars is and always will be A New Hope. I love it, I probably watch it 4 or 5 times a year and when I was a kid I watched it all the time. I've easily seen the first it a thousand times. ESB and Jedi not so much but I do like them but for me it's A New Hope, sure it has problems, for example the light sabre fight is laughable but there's just a certain sense of wonder that I felt few other movies have ever captured. Vader and Tarkin are fantastic villains. Leia is hot. Luke is just a stupid kid caught up in an adventure. Kenobi lends a sense of gravitas. The Death Star is impressive. The Falcon is like an ugly kick ass muscle car driven by a likable outlaw. For me though it's the final act, the entire trench run just gets me every time, I never get bored of it.

Of course now I just wanna go home and watch it again, doh!

seraphimvc

i actually rewatch 4-6 during the summer,still awesome movies to me

yah,there are some aging scenes look very bad now - eg like Yoda lol the effect is just plain bad or when uncle ben get 'killed' by Vader he just disappear in the air and many more.

however, despise all these unwatchable flaws in modern movies world, still love Starwars to bits.hated the new trilogy tho but tbh the one with Darth Maul is awesome.

Jedi.Lightsaber.Spaceship.Talking robots.Harrisson Ford holding gun saving our princess lol

i am a happy man by watching them.

timeless piece.