What's so great about A New Hope?

[Lurker 5]

Neil, you are nitpicking a bit.

Stefancos- who is actually proud of Neil.  

Perhaps, but there are so many problems with this film and this is a minor one, but still it demonstrates the sheer crappiness of this film.

Neil

[Guest]

Perhaps, but there are so many problems with this film and this is a minor one, but still it demonstrates the sheer crappiness of this film.

What a crap!

To me this entire thread is on the verge of trolling.

You could as well ask "What´s so great about John Williams?".

If you don´t get it, forget it, you never will,a shame for you!

[IrishCal24 0]

Damn, Ricard if this continues you may have to place Star Wars along with politics and religion in the list of banned topics!

[Guest]

If George Lucas took the time and put the effort into the prequels that Peter Jackson has done with The Lord Of The Rings then all of the criticism toward TPM & AOTC wouldn't be necessary.

ROTJ is the weakest of the first three cause Lucas got rid of a few people(Gary Kurtz to name a few) who probably had the guts to argue with him.

In Star Wars: The Annotated Scripts there was mention that ROTJ was going to be a much darker film at first and did not have the second Death Star, in fact I think the finale was going to take place in the Imperial Palace. Lucas changed his mind and went the safe route.

Luke I think your wanting TTT to be nominated for a Razzie is just sour grapes over AOTC being nominated. It is way better than AOTC and I'm not as hard on the prequels as others on this board are.

[Ollie 1,059]

If George Lucas took the time and put the effort into the prequels that Peter Jackson has done with The Lord Of The Rings then all of the criticism toward TPM & AOTC wouldn't be necessary.

ROTJ is the weakest of the first three cause Lucas got rid of a few people(Gary Kurtz to name a few) who probably had the guts to argue with him.

In Star Wars: The Annotated Scripts there was mention that ROTJ was going to be a much darker film at first and did not have the second Death Star, in fact I think the finale was going to take place in the Imperial Palace. Lucas changed his mind and went the safe route.

 

Luke I think your wanting TTT to be nominated for a Razzie is just sour grapes over AOTC being nominated. It is way better than AOTC and I'm not as hard on the prequels as others on this board are.

Oops that was me, got logged off.

[Guest]

If George Lucas took the time and put the effort into the prequels that Peter Jackson has done with The Lord Of The Rings then all of the criticism toward TPM & AOTC wouldn't be necessary.  

ROTJ is the weakest of the first three cause Lucas got rid of a few people(Gary Kurtz to name a few) who probably had the guts to argue with him.  

In Star Wars: The Annotated Scripts there was mention that ROTJ was going to be a much darker film at first and did not have the second Death Star, in fact I think the finale was going to take place in the Imperial Palace. Lucas changed his mind and went the safe route.  

Luke I think your wanting TTT to be nominated for a Razzie is just sour grapes over AOTC being nominated. It is way better than AOTC and I'm not as hard on the prequels as others on this board are.

Gary Kurtz, that guy that called the force mumbo jumbo and lives off telling people how differnt Star Wars was planned?

This is what I call sour grapes!

And about the LOTR movies in genral, not only do I not like them, I loathe them!

The are an annoying boring poormans pseudo-shakespearian/wanna-be Star Wars hybrid!

And I used to love the book (despite it´s weak finale; I wish there were more finales like Jedi ), but I fear it´s ruined for me now, haven´t tried since.

Luckily the Dark Tower story will almost certainly never make it to the big screen, I know now wishing for that can be a big mistake!

[UCFKevin 0]

Neil, you talk about how the audience might've liked another scene better if this or that was done.

Just because YOU hate the movie doesn't mean everyone else does. Because you felt a scene was limp or stupid does not mean at all that others do, at all. I found Vader's death to be very impactful and touching. I'm sure many others do as well. A lot of people actually prefer ROTJ to any other movie, many hold it as their favorite SW movie.

And for someone who thinks the movie's so damn crappy, you sure do seem to know quite a bit about it. Why watch it ever again if you hate it so much?

[Beowulf 4]

Well...i'm glad that this thread has spurned such varied and enthusiastic responses. Afterall, the differences in opinions are what make people interesting and unique, instead of conformist automotons.

In the onset, I would like to make something very clear - many people believe that I somehow hate ANH or think that it is a rubbish-film. But nothing can be further from the truth. If you were paying close attention, you would have seen that I place ANH atop a high pedastal. ANH is definitely one of my favorite films of all time. I give it respect in that it is the one that started it all and heck, most films in the world can't even hold a candle to it. But in comparison to the other Star Wars films, some elements of it lacking, in my opinion (read my first post for further argument )

In the end, one has to remember that tastes in film, just as about taste in everything else, is based on opinion. It's subjective, and can't be proven to be better. I think all the Star Wars films are fantastic...others don't. Some people only like the OT, and others only like the PT (mind you, those are the kids whose "ANH" was TPM) - and that's a matter of opinon. I happen to like them all.

And oh yeah...don't diss ROTJ - it's the film that introduced, and got me hooked onto Star Wars!

I found Vader's death to be very impactful and touching. I'm sure many others do as well.

You are right there Kevin. In my opinion, I think the whole sequence of Vader's Redemption and Death is one of the most powerful scenes in all movie history - and this is becoming all the more apparant with the prequels, where we actually get to know the tragic character of Anakin Skywalker.

[Lurker 5]

And for someone who thinks the movie's so damn crappy, you sure do seem to know quite a bit about it. Why watch it ever again if you hate it so much?

When I was a kid I used to watch it all the time. Up until about 1997, when I got incredibly bored watching the SE in the theater did Jedi's flaws become noticeable to me. I think I may have watched the film once since that time. For instance, I did not watch it when I made your tape of it. But I think it's a good example of don't complain about something unless you really know what you are talking about.

I do listen to the soundtrack a decent amount though. It's pretty good.

Neil

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Neil, ROTJ had flaws, no doubt about it.

But unline TMP and AOTC is still has enough zest and energy to keep me interested.

And some parts of the film are simply GREAT.

Also, since you consider TESB to be only half a film, how do you consider TWOK, or Search For Spock?

Stefancos- wondering if Neil on ICQ, right now.

[Morn 8]

The movie ends with teddy bears dancing around a campfire, and you think my idea is corny?

Yes, and they are cute.

If I recall correctly, we first see a ship taking off and then we cut to Luke.  We don't even know who's ship this is, since there is never an establishing shot.  We have no idea who is in it.  It could just be some random space craft taking off.  Just another sign of how poorly made this film really is.

Err, if we cut to Luke we know it's Luke right? Besides one is likely to assume it's Luke's shuttle.

Why not have Vader die on Endor with Han and Leia present as well?

It would make the father and son thingy less intense.

It's hardly great.  It's like watching Humpty Dumpty die.

:?

Rule number one of cinema, show don't tell.  I never saw it doing anything really destructive.

We saw enough in ANH.

Hell, one A-Wing fighter was able to take out a Super Star Destoyer.  How powerful does that make the Death Star, as portrayed in Jedi, seem in comparison?

It crashed into the bridge!

In the onset, I would like to make something very clear - many people believe that I somehow hate ANH or think that it is a rubbish-film. But nothing can be further from the truth. If you were paying close attention, you would have seen that I place ANH atop a high pedastal.

It's not a rubbish film at all, it's just got some problems

and is weaker than the other 2.

[Lurker 5]

It's hardly great.  It's like watching Humpty Dumpty die.

:?

Just go to this link. You'll see what I mean.

Here's a clue.....

Neil

[Morn 8]

:?

[Justin 2]

Your link isn't working Neil.

Justin

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Without ANH, there wouldn't be any prequels, sequels, there wouldn't be any SW, hell, ''neo-classical'' and orchestra might not be the standard for scores. I like the scores of the sequels much more in terms of enjoyability (one reason is that they have more themes), but they wouldn't be possible without ANH to built upon. ANH deserves some respect.

Look if that worked, people here should show respect for the Special Editions, which few do. ANd they gave us two coplete scores and one almost complete.

And i'm not saying i do not respect it.

Neil: end of discussion (for my part at least)

Mark: i did not said TTT was a bad movie (neither i said the contrary just that as a book adaptation is it crap. Similar to Spielberg's The Lost World.

Luke, who thinks PJ is not as different as Lucas as people believe.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Mark: i did not said TTT was a bad movie (neither i said the contrary just that as a book adaptation is it crap. Similar to Spielberg's The Lost World.

First of all, I believe films should be able to stand on it's own, instead of slavishly following every nuance of a book.

Both TTT and TLW can stand very well on it's own.

As a translation from paper to cinema, I must say TTT is one of the best films i've seen so far, keeping the essence of the book, but not afrad of trowing out, or altering things that will work better on film.

Luke, who thinks PJ is not as different as Lucas as people believe.

Hmmm...PJ has made 2 good big budget films in the last few years.

Lucas made 2 mediocre ones.

Stefancos- wondering why Luke is always trying to compare SW with LOTR. :?

[David Coscina 3]

I think this debate largely centres around the fact that those of us who were alive when the original film came out in 1977 prefer ANH over anything afterward. I was 9 when Star Wars came out and I loved it. When ESB was released years later, I loved it even more. As an adult though, I much prefer Star Wars ANH to any of the sequels or prequels largely because it is the most mature film of the bunch. The tone of ANH might be misinterpretted as "stale" or "boring", but Lucas forged the film after Kurosawa's Hidden Fortess which in itself was serious. Seeing Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen's fried corpses still bothers me to this day. I cannot say the same for any "attrocity" committed by the Empire in any of the other films because Lucas imbued the original film with a certain legitimacy. Also, like the Indiana Jones trilogy, the Star Wars franchise got more and more infantile as it went along. The humour and character interactions were crafted with a younger audience in mind. It's like Lucas (and Spielberg for Raiders) came out with films that evoked the serial films of the '30's and '40's for GROWNUPS to look back on and enjoy with some sentimentality. Once both films grew into a franchise, the filmmakers consiously or unconsiously began to redefine the characters so they would be more palpable to younger audiences. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. And I think it's really too bad because both ANH and Raiders are fine films unto themselves.

I don't mean to insult anyone out there who prefers the other films in both series; everyone has their own preferences. For me, I can still sit through all of ANH. The same cannot be said for the other films (although I have learned to appreciate aspects of Episode 1, especially the Liam Neeson character).

[Rogue_Leader 2]

First rule of cinematic discussion!

Never listen to the opinions of a man who uses one of the WORST FILMS EVER MADE AS HIS AVATAR!!!

Half kidding there.

OK seriously, but AOTC a better film than ANH???

Ummmm how so exactly?

AOTC had some of the worst action sequences (pretty much all of them just rip offs of action sequences from other films in the series and other sci-fi films), worst dialogue, and worst ...... ummmmmmm ac ....ting ..... GOD I CANNOT BELIEVE I CALLED IT THAT .... of the friggin series. Surpassing even TPM to my own amazement.

I have to laugh at some of the reasons you gave for TPM being a better film than ANH. The saber fight was more exciting? PLEASE! They throw in some lame ass Jedi Fu (which pales next to the stuff seen in any REAL Kung Fu film) and this is supposed to be exciting? The conflict between Ben Kenobi and Vader is more exciting to me. Sure they don't do friggin back flips and hand stands and a bunch of other ridiculous crap, but what that fight seen does have is something RARELY seen in a SW movie nowadays. EMOTION! What drove that fight was the personal nature of the conflict and the showdown between two long-time enemies.

The fight scene in TPM had none of this emotion. It was totally pointless. It was all like:

::Hangar door opens::

Obi-Wan: Look! He is wearing a dark cloak!

Gui-Gonn: AND ...... EVIL MAKEUP!

Obi-Wan: OH my God! Look at that sinister look! Master how dare he look at me like that!

Qui-Gonn: Well OK obviously we must fight this guy! We cannot have someone with such bad makeup work running around freely in the galaxy. Padme leave us alone to fight him you take the long way around while we deal with this guy!

Padme: Ummmmmm WHY exactly? You two could just fight him while we all shoot at him and kill him quickly thereby bypass having to go all the way around and facing tons of pointless battles with the fake looking CO droids. I mean .... HELLO! There are LIKE 15 OF US BACK HERE! He cannot deflect our blasters and fight you two at the same time!

Qui-Gonn: Ummm well that would be against our Jedi principles to do such a thing.

Padme: OH OK but double teaming a Sith is OK by your rule book.

Obi-Wan: Master?

Qui-Gonn: Ummmm well you see it like uhhhh ...... ummmm ..... ehh.......... awwww ....

Obi-Wan: Master?

Qui-Gonn: I suddenly sensed a great disturbance in the Force. It was as if the Hack screenwriter completely wrote himself into a corner and is now trying to make us quickly move on and how the audience does not notice the plot hole.

Obi-Wan: Hmmmm but wouldn't they have already noticed about 157 of those by this point.

Qui-Gonn: Not to worry my young apprentice I forsee there will be plenty of CG to keep the weak minded entertained.

Obi-Wan: Ahhhh thats good. As long as we don't alienate this film's target audience.

Padme: Ok we'll take the long way. I mean I figured when you brought that Anakin kid whom you swore to protect into the middle of a friggin war zone you were not exactly a man who like to do things the sensible way.

Yeah clearly a superior fight sequence!

[Rogue_Leader 2]

OH and as for that crap about kids preferring the new SW films to the old SW films.

Most kids today could not even care about SW. They are into Spiderman or LOTR or Harry Potter or some other crap.

SW has (thanks to Lucas) become yesterday's news.

Sure maybe SOME kids prefer the new SW films. Probably the same variety who watch the new SW films when they feel that "Sponge Bob" has gotten to be a little bit too much of "Heavy material" for them.

I am sure all those cute CG Muppets that Lucas refers to using the term "characters" would make any kid happy.

Perhaps Lucas could add in the Pokemon Species into the SW Galaxy.

Maybe Pikachu will come to Obi-Wan's rescue as he fights Anakin in Episode III.

Hey, if there is a dollar to be made from it I would not put it above Lucas' head. Need I remind you folks this is the man who put N'Sync into a SW film?

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Mark: i did not said TTT was a bad movie (neither i said the contrary just that as a book adaptation is it crap. Similar to Spielberg's The Lost World.

First of all, I believe films should be able to stand on it's own, instead of slavishly following every nuance of a book.

Both TTT and TLW can stand very well on it's own.

As a translation from paper to cinema, I must say TTT is one of the best films i've seen so far, keeping the essence of the book, but not afrad of trowing out, or altering things that will work better on film.

Luke, who thinks PJ is not as different as Lucas as people believe.

Hmmm...PJ has made 2 good big budget films in the last few years.

Lucas made 2 mediocre ones.

Stefancos- wondering why Luke is always trying to compare SW with LOTR. :?

Look i detest comparing the two series. I almost hated LOTR for hearing comparisons.

If movies should not follow a book, why use it? Just make a movie with an original story.

I only said here that if GL had made LOTR as they are I SWEAR you would be bithching to hell those movies and Lucas would have been butchered by a horde of LOTR fans.

Rogue_Leader, your posts have that big load of nonsense that they are not worth answering to.

[Morn 8]

I think this debate largely centres around the fact that those of us who were alive when the original film came out in 1977 prefer ANH over anything afterward.  I was 9 when Star Wars came out and I loved it.  When ESB was released years later, I loved it even more.  As an adult though, I much prefer Star Wars ANH to any of the sequels or prequels largely because it is the most mature film of the bunch. The tone of ANH might be misinterpretted as "stale" or "boring", but Lucas forged the film after Kurosawa's Hidden Fortess which in itself was serious.  Seeing Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen's fried corpses still bothers me to this day.

I assure you I wasn't referring to that scene when I said stale and boring, it only becomes that way when they get to the death star. It's great up till then. I just see TESB and ROTJ as more dramatic.

The humour and character interactions were crafted with a younger audience in mind.  It's like Lucas (and Spielberg for Raiders) came out with films that evoked the serial films of the '30's and '40's for GROWNUPS to look back on and enjoy with some sentimentality.  Once both films grew into a franchise, the filmmakers consiously or unconsiously began to redefine the characters so they would be more palpable to younger audiences.  This isn't the first time something like this has happened.  And I think it's really too bad because both ANH and Raiders are fine films unto themselves.

I'm not sure how you can say that about TESB. It's argueable for TOD and is so for ROTJ and TLC. Doesn't make them any less fun though. TLC is the greatest comedy ever.

[IrishCal24 0]

Few films can claim to inspire such passion among both its fans and its detractors as Star Wars, or if you prefer A New Hope, and that is what so great about the film.

[Trumpeteer 302]

Funny stuff, Rogue Leader.

[Uni 306]

Funny....it was just a couple of weeks ago that my eight-year-old son asked if he could watch Star Wars again. Since I hadn't seen the first one since before the release of SE, I thought I'd join him (we were able to view the original version through the use of an ancient form of technology called a "VCR"). I wondered how the prequels would affect things, and even wondered if I had outgrown it to some extent after all these years.

In short....I was enthralled. I don't know if it was the recurrance of the emotions I grew up with obliterating my objectivity, or if, even after a quarter-century, it still personifies the age-old cliche of the "timeless classic," but I couldn't help but get caught up in it. I get the feeling the latter is the more likely. There is a spirit in that movie (and in its two sequels) that transcends the simple medium of film. It's a mythology for our age (or at least for the generation before this one). There's no denying the goofiness of much of it; I've been one of the most vocal in throttling Lucas as a writer, and seeing his first effort did nothing to improve my view on that count. (The movie also had a slightly dated look, suffering from the same blight that struck Star Trek: The Motion Picture, when the entire universe was inexplicably overcome by an attack of the 70's). But once upon a time, he was a better storyteller. I have to agree with all those who have pointed out the irony that one of his downfalls has been the success of the films. Though it doesn't look it, Star Wars was another Fitzcaraldo or Apocolypse Now in its time in that the story on the screen was an art-imitating-life reflection of what was really happening behind the scenes: a small group of guerilla filmmakers taking on the film studio Empire. Back then, the desperation of the "rebels" bubbled to the top, giving the slick presentation a grittier edge and a sense of urgency that energized the whole thing. A touch of that was missing in the films that followed, but for the most part the trilogy never lost that edge.

Then Lucas allowed fifteen years to pass, and forgot his roots (and his own advice, too, when he said that "a special effect without a story is a pretty dull thing."). Now he has the luxury of money, time, and power. In short, he's founded an Empire of his own, adopting many of the attitudes he once labored to defy. Nowadays he's trying to assume the austere voice of a higher level of bard, reciting his tales with so much reverence and gravity that they've become antiseptic, untouchable. He's lost his connection with the audience. That transcendent spirit is gone.

Watching Star Wars: A New Hope (there's a good compromise--use both titles), I began seeing all the little things that made it superior to the newer visions. I'm not going to go into each one here, but the greater part of it has to do with the choice of perspective. Star Wars is about the blue collar fighting a greater enemy: a backwoods farm boy, an everyman rogue, the old sage, a girl struggling with responsibilities too heavy for her slim shoulders; we can understand and relate to these people. Politicians and masters of ancient, mysterious arts are less likely to draw the cheers of an adventure-seeking crowd.

Hmm....I'm trying to lay out something that isn't entirely tangible here, and suppose I can't really defend it without laying out extensive examples (maybe later; I'm not in the mood). All I can say is that, while the art and craft of filmmaking may have improved in the subsequent years, and that Empire and Jedi were great undertakings in themselves, Star Wars deserves its place as one of the greatest films of all time. (Not that that's what you were doing, Beowulf; you stated your opinion in such a way that invited discussion, not challenged debate, and I'm not sure why some of the spit-'n'-fire of this thread was necessary.)

- Uni

P.S....Something else that's renewed the spirit of SW for me recently was a return to the trilogy of Timothy Zahn books (starting with Heir to the Empire). If you haven't read them yet, they're a must for any Star Wars fan, recreating the spirit and adventure of the original trilogy in spectacular form, while being brilliantly written books in their own right.

[Uni 306]

I'll need another post for this one....

Concerning the end of The Lord of the Rings (spoilers follow, but most of it's already been spoiled anyway, so....): This whole idea about Sauron's appearance for the climax at Mount Doom misses the point entirely. It would have sold short both the immediate story (LOTR) and the epic tapestry of Middle Earth as a whole. There are several reasons for this, but two stand out:

- Sauron was not your everyday, black hat/moustache-twirling villain. He's an ancient character, once the leftenant of the real evil power in ME in the person of Morgoth (as the elves called him; he was Melkor in the beginning, one of the Ainur, the crafters of the world). Sauron of old was a shape-changer, known as the Lord of Werewolves, and held the fortress of Angband during the centuries his master was chained by the Valar. He was the chief conspirator in the fall of Numenor, and deceived the elves of Eregion into shaping the Rings of Power. He was a central figure throughout Tolkien's epic history.

Tolkien had been writing that history since lying in a military hospital in Birmingham in 1916, and would continue his work until his death in 1973 (the work was published by his son as The Silmarillion following his passing). That vast mythology was his real passion; the Rings trilogy was woven into it, and though it would become the front door for most people who enter his world, in truth it was a secondary work. (It was only on a whim that he decided to set The Hobbit, a story he'd been telling his children, in the realm of Middle Earth, and Rings began as a larkish sequel to that children's story.)

All that to say that Sauron's lack of form (other than the Red Eye) had been established more than 3,000 years earlier by events greater than are contained in LOTR. After all that, to have him march out with black cloak swirling for some face-to-face confrontation with the hobbits would have been ludicrous. It would throw to the wind everything that had been engineered to that point, and would (honestly) have ruined the story. It's a bit like saying that Lucas should never have made Vader Luke's father, that it would have been much better and more exciting if Luke had just cut the villain's head off at the end and been done with it. That idea (on an altogether different scale, of course, but the analogy fits) erases all understanding of what's gone before, everything that brought the saga to it's dramatic ending, and cheapens the story Lucas wanted to tell. To suggest that Tolkien misstepped here (as though he was just "blocked" that day) is to totally disregard the bulk of his lifetime's work.

And anyway, as the story itself says time and again, the hobbits aren't there to battle Sauron; the whole idea is to prevent his return to tangible form. For all the ill the Dark Lord wreaks in the War of the Ring, he does so only as a rear-echelon general of sorts, the mind behind the madness. If he'd gotten hold of the Ring, he would've been restored to his full power and old form and enslaved the world without any real effort. It would have been over, regardless of any further battles or wars or whatnot. The hobbits were out to stop that, not to defeat Sauron in a contest of wills or strength.

- That alternate ending would also have missed the crucial conclusion of the plotline that was as important as the destruction of the Ring itself. For Frodo, the quest of Mordor had become more than just a means to undo Sauron's power; it was a journey of redemption for a wretched but sympathetic character whom he still hoped to bring back into the light. As much as he wanted the Ring destroyed, he also wanted to rescue Gollum. What happens at Mount Doom justifies all the apparently questionable times Smeagol's life has been spared in the past, and does in fact serve as an ultimate redemption in itself.

Peter S. Beagle, one of the great scholars of Tolkien's works, touches on this in his essay "Tolkien's Magic Ring": Bilbo and Sam and many others have chances to kill him, but each time the idea of his suffering, vaguely as they may conceive it (and it takes someone who has borne the Ring, even for a little while, to understand Gollum's agony), prevents them; and so he lives to play out his part in the story of the Ring. In the end he haunts the imagination perhaps more than any other character in The Lord of the Rings, which is fitting, for he was already a ghost when the story began. To have shorn things down to a simple fencing match with Sauron at the end would have undermined one of the most vital elements of the story.

However....I can't really blame some of you for feeling the way you do. Interestingly, I remember experiencing something of the same sentiment after my own first reading of the story. Modern literature and cinema have conditioned us to expect the players at the top of the Good and Evil lists to cross swords in the end; that's our definition of climax (well, the literary definition, anyway....:roll:). And that wasn't the only thing that felt a little skewed the first time through; when this subject first came up, I thought the ending you were talking about was the scouring of the Shire (at the end end of the book). That didn't feel right either. I was a little discouraged with it at the time, but when I read it again, knowing what was coming (and what Tolkien intended in taking that course), it felt perfect.

That's the thing....this book has to be read multiple times to really begin to grasp the underlying meanings and purposes Tolkien was reaching for. The plus is that this is a story that's truly as good the second and subsequent times through as the first. (I remember feeling an overwhelming sense of intoxication the night I read for the second time about the hobbits' journey through the Marish and their conversation at Crickhollow. The sense of knowing what was ahead made me, for some reason, absolutely giddy.) And it's one of the few books that can stand up to multiple readings. Beagle again hit it right on the head when he says: It will bear the mind's handling, and it is a book that will acquire an individual patina in each mind that takes it up, like a much-caressed pocket stone or piece of wood. At times, always knowing that I didn't write it, I feel like I did. I've read the work ten complete times (not counting the browsing I did for the project I did in conjunction with it), and each time--without exception--I found something in it I'd never seen before, some subtle nuance of description or dialogue that added a detail to the already-magnificent canvas.

So if the ending didn't feel quite right the first time through, give it another go. I can almost guarantee that you'll come away with a different impression of the outcome.

- Uni....who in doing this remembered that he owes Stefan a review of The Two Towers....

[Beowulf 4]

Wow!

Thanks for the input Uni. Now I see why you're regarded as somewhat of an esteemed sage around here - I may disagree with you here, but I do respect your highly intelligent and insightful viewpoint.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

 (The movie also had a slightly dated look,

That has more to do with your video tape than anything else. Its surprising how dated Jaws looks on tape, but how good it looks on DVD.

suffering from the same blight that struck Star Trek: The Motion Picture, when the entire universe was inexplicably overcome by an attack of the 70's).

a more civilized age

 Though it doesn't look it, Star Wars was another Fitzcaraldo or Apocolypse Now in its time in that the story on the screen was an art-imitating-life reflection of what was really happening behind the scenes: a small group of guerilla filmmakers taking on the film studio Empire.  Back then, the desperation of the "rebels" bubbled to the top, giving the slick presentation a grittier edge and a sense of urgency that energized the whole thing.  A touch of that was missing in the films that followed, but for the most part the trilogy never lost that edge.  

actually it could be said that Apocolypse Now was another Star Wars, since it came later. Though through my eyes it is a much lesser film than Star Wars, and like all Vietnam war films, it has a muddled message much like the war itself.

Watching Star Wars: A New Hope (there's a good compromise--use both titles), I began seeing all the little things that made it superior to the newer visions.  

while I can acknowledge the change I cannot bring myself to make such a compromise, especially since I am usually referring to the film from 1977, when the subtitle never existed. I too see the things that made it superior to the newer versions, included this boards beloved Empire Strikes Back, a wonderful and flawed film, made moreso by the SE.

[Uni 306]

(The movie also had a slightly dated look' date='[/quote']

That has more to do with your video tape than anything else. Its surprising how dated Jaws looks on tape, but how good it looks on DVD.

actually it could be said that Apocolypse Now was another Star Wars' date=' since it came later. Though through my eyes it is a much lesser film than Star Wars, and like all Vietnam war films, it has a muddled message much like the war itself.[/quote']

Which brings up the interesting and inevitable connection between the two, each with its own American Zoetrope alum as director--and each, when you get right down to it, being a war picture. The underlying difference between them, then, is that while Copella was obsessed with a very dark and narrow vision of Vietnam, Lucas simply used civil war as an establishing backdrop to tell an exciting story. While it could easily be argued that Apocolypse is the better written, maybe even better crafted, film, I'd definitely agree that Star Wars is overall the superior, both in broadness of scope and sheer entertainment value.

(Heh....wouldn't it be hilarious to see a parody combining the two? Say, a sort of altered history where the Zoetrope gang stayed together, and Lucas and Copella decided to meld their ideas into one story? You'd have the Corellian captain of the blockade runner quipping, "I love the smell of turbolasers in the morning...."; Leia in her solitary confinement cell, up to her ears in mud; Luke charged with tracking down the obsessive Vader, trying to bring him back from the edge (isn't that what happened anyway...?). Could be good for a few laughs....)

- Uni

[Hlao-roo 389]

The man's enlarged my mind! And now...he's constricting my throat...*ack*

[Uni 306]

*pointing*

I find your lack of faith....disturbing....

- Uni

[UCFKevin 0]

I find it enticing. :oops:

[JoeinAR 1,949]

What none of you know, is that there is a deleted scene in Star Wars, and the only reason its not going to be shown is because Coppola asked George if he could borrow it.

the scene is this

after the storm troopers kill Owen and Buru, you see Vader, standing over there bodies.

you here the heavy breathing, and then Vader says.

ahhh-ohhhh, ahhh-ohhhh, I love the smell of burning plasma in the morning,

smells like, Victory. ahhh-ohhhh, ahhh, ohhhh.

George agreed to allow Francis to use it in his film, because he and studio execs thought it was too distrubing, making redemption seem too unrealistic, and Lucas didn't want Vader too evil, so that one day he could humanize him once again.

Joe, who confirmed the existance of the scene when I spoke to James Earl Jones at a symposium at the University of Arkansas recently. What a fantastic speaker.