"If you don't love every single Star Wars movie, you're not a true fan!"

[Will 2,215]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Thor is a film critic?

 

I could be wrong on that. Can anyone confirm?

 

In any case, he seems to attend lots of premiere screenings and be very involved in film so he's presumably quite knowledgeable about the subject regardless of his profession.

[gkgyver 1,645]

The Force Awakens is as much a product of its time of Hollywood trying to recapture old glory and failing as Ghostbusters, Batman vs Superman, and countless others are.

There is nothing unique about it as with the original series. Nobody takes risks, nobody goes out on a limb. And that's why a movie like TFA, that is lying in a made bed, will never, ever, be equal to the original series.

 

And before somebody mentions it, because some people have amazing ways of ignoring facts in favor of talking trash, The Hobbit is not that category because it 1. wasn't an original story, but a book, and 2. was in the making quite some years before the wave of atrocious Hollywood remakes.

[Wojo 2,453]

But so much artificial story padding was added to The Hobbit that it became something bigger. Something unholy. Something shit. 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

13 minutes ago, gkgyver said:

The Force Awakens is as much a product of its time of Hollywood trying to recapture old glory and failing as Ghostbusters, Batman vs Superman, and countless others are.

There is nothing unique about it as with the original series. Nobody takes risks, nobody goes out on a limb. And that's why a movie like TFA, that is lying in a made bed, will never, ever, be equal to the original series.

 

And before somebody mentions it, because some people have amazing ways of ignoring facts in favor of talking trash, The Hobbit is not that category because it 1. wasn't an original story, but a book, and 2. was in the making quite some years before the wave of atrocious Hollywood remakes.

The Hobbit was very obviously constructed to recapture the glory of Lord Of The Rings by producing three films, releasing extended editions, and having expanded soundtracks.

 

Also, how the hell is Batman V Superman trying to recapture old glory? It's never been done before on film, and we can use your Hobbit reasoning to say it's not valid because it's based on comic books and isn't an original story. 

 

I also wouldn't say The Force Awakens failed considering it's one of the highest grossing film of all time. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree with Koray.

[Bespin 8,484]

I'm a real fan, I played with that when I was a kid:

 

And I had a Wampa. If it doesn't mean a thing!

 

 

[Glóin the Dark 1,223]

No true Scotsman dislikes the prequels.

[Will 2,215]

2 hours ago, WojinPA said:

It's accurate to say the kid doesn't understand how a cake is baked: from one homogeneous tub of batter put into the oven at one time. 

 

If you bake three cakes two years apart, then three more cakes two years apart twenty years later, then the 7th cake ten years after that.... It's not one single cake. It's a set of seven cupcakes, maybe. 

 

A cake doesn't have to be baked, and it doesn't need to have batter. 

 

I've eaten an ice cream cake before. It was made up of an ice cream layer and an Oreo layer -- distinct parts that combined to create a cake.

 

It's accurate to say you missed my point with the cake analogy, or at least decided to be very picky about how an actual cake is constructed. 

 

Star Wars is one franchise. The fact that it's made up of multiple parts doesn't change that.

 

Of course, if your reply was simply in good fun, than it's on me for missing the point of your post. 

[Wojo 2,453]

K. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

57 minutes ago, Will said:

Star Wars is one franchise. The fact that it's made up of multiple parts doesn't change that.

 

Well yeah it does change that, making the cake analogy flawed. Each Star Wars movie was made separately, thus they are each a separate cake that tastes different from one another. Some people might like the taste of the older cakes more than the newer cakes because they used better ingredients and preparation methods back then.

 

Again, we're back to this mindset that a "franchise" of films must be looked at as a whole. Are people who like Alien and Aliens required to like Alien 3 to ensure their status as Alien fans is validated? Because the Fox cake shop sure made a crappy cake for some people to swallow in 1992.

[Will 2,215]

18 hours ago, Shatner's Rug said:

Has anyone else been unlucky enough to run into one of those fanatics who thinks every cinematic entry in the Star Wars franchise (god forbid you call it a "franchise", it's the "collective works of an auteur!") is magical and sacred, and if you feel that certain entries don't measure up to par with others, you're not a "true fan"?

 

I've spoken to them online and met them in real life. I worked with one bloke who insisted that to call yourself a true fan, you shouldn't criticise any entry in the series for perceived failures, and he asked how you could only like one part of the series?

 

I've always been baffled by this mindset. It's as if they're incapable of assessing a single, individual work of art by its own merit, and instead seem to be blinded by brand loyalty. And they hold the content creators (ie George Lucas or whoever) to an almost deified level, that criticism of their work shall not be tolerated. And if you're the poor sod who dares to hold the content creators to account for their failures, the white knight fan brigade will attempt to vilify you by making false accusations toward you or attempt to ostracise you from their community. The Harry Potter fandom has a few vocal participants like this who believe every entry in the novel series is flawless and equally great and JK Rowling is incapable of mistakes or errors in judgement. I guess they're free to think so, but just because they think so doesn't make it so.

 

But it seems to be most prominent in those two fandoms from what I've observed. You might have seen it elsewhere. But I've never seen anyone bark at others for expressing dislike toward certain DC or Marvel movies and accuse them of not being real fans if they only see merit in certain films but not all of them. Same goes for say, Star Trek, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Godzilla, James Bond, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, just to name a few examples.

 

I dunno, this is just my ponder for the day.

 

(Sorry for quoting the entire original post, but I thought it would be helpful)

 

I just thought I'd take some time to reflect on the original post, something I haven't really done yet as I've been busy keeping the anti-prequelers at bay:

 

I'll admit to treating certain artists/franchises -- JW, Spielberg, and Lucas (SW), the first by far the most of all -- with extreme reverence. That doesn't mean I like every one of those works but it does mean that I have a certain base line level of respect for their work. Even if I don't like a work I can rarely if ever accept that it's truly bad -- I cling to the notion that there's a certain intelligence behind its construction that makes it superior to what other artists produce (which isn't always untrue). 

 

But I'll never "like" something simply because it's by one of my favorite artists. I'll usually have a high level of respect for it, however. 

 

In terms of the prequels, I'm not blinded by brand loyalty, although it's possible it affects my thinking on them to some extent. Again I must return to the SW ring theory and my interest in politics/world affairs which play large parts in why I appreciate the prequels. Particularly the ring theory, which really solidifies how SW is one story with each part densely interconnected.

 

Because the SW saga's episodes are so interconnected, and because the prequels make up such a large part of the saga, I do think that appreciation of the prequels is important if you want to call yourself a "true fan" of the SW saga. But it's not necessary to simply be a true SW fan -- as Thor said all you have to do is like one film, really. 

 

And "appreciating" the prequels doesn't necessarily mean liking every bit of them. You can spot plenty of failures in a film but still appreciate it.

 

I want to talk briefly about consensus. It seems that nearly everyone doesn't appreciate the prequels. The tendency when you're part of the consensus is to laugh off any challenge. Thus, while a few have intelligently considered my thoughts, at least to an extent (I do hope someone will check out the ring theory) -- and I hope I have done likewise with others' (for instance, I watched a long, negative TPM review) -- many have not.

 

"And if you're the poor sod who dares to hold the content creators to account for their failures, the white knight fan brigade will attempt to vilify you by making false accusations toward you or attempt to ostracise you from their community."

 

I certainly would never vilify/personally attack someone who feels differently from I about the prequels, although I'm sure there are some who have done so.

 

While this may not have been the intent, the above paragraph almost makes it sound like the few who dare to criticize SW films get disciplined by the ruthless, overpowering majority. 

 

When, if anything, it's those in the minority that like the prequels that get criticism from the overpowering majority.

 

*Note: I'm sure some here think I might be trolling but I assure you I am not. The fact that I typed this post entirely on my phone should show that I want to share my genuine thoughts; this would be a lot of effort to go to simply to troll. *

[Jilal 569]

9 minutes ago, Will said:

I typed this post entirely on my phone

 

U got skillz bro

[Will 2,215]

1 hour ago, Shatner's Rug said:

 

 

Again, we're back to this mindset that a "franchise" of films must be looked at as a whole. Are people who like Alien and Aliens required to like Alien 3 to ensure their status as Alien fans is validated? Because the Fox cake shop sure made a crappy cake for some people to swallow in 1992.

 

See my long post, where I say that calling yourself a true SW fan and calling yourself a true SW saga fan can be different, if that makes sense.

 

[Jilal 569]

OMG Will! 666 posts!

[Simon McBride 113]

I like the prequels. I think their quite fun to watch. More so than the originals in some aspects. Also, where did the ring theory name come from. Why don't they just call it it's actual name, chiasmus. 

[Will 2,215]

22 minutes ago, Jilal said:

OMG Will! 666 posts!

 

Sweet! Except now it's 667, and will be 668 after I submit this post.  

 

By the way I just want to apologize to everyone for my often confrontational demeanor here. I generally like to be largely impartial and not get involved in too much bickering. But for some reason at JWFan I've gotten into a lot of arguments. Hopefully that trait will taper out over time. Maybe I just need to avoid these arguments altogether, however difficult that may be (it's hard to not respond when people make statements you disagree with). 

9 minutes ago, Hawmy said:

I like the prequels. I think their quite fun to watch. More so than the originals in some aspects. Also, where did the ring theory name come from. Why don't they just call it it's actual name, chiasmus. 

 

So you know about it?! Finally, I've found another. 

[Jilal 569]

Will, this is a discussion forum. You're allowed to discuss things here.

 

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

The problem with the prequels is -in my opinion- that there is no passion behind them. Sure, it's got some neat ideas and some cool individual scenes, but as a whole, none of the films really add up. Considering Lucas comes from the Coppola. Spielberg, Scorsese, DePalma group of filmmakers the prequels are directed like shit. The shots are flat, there are no interesting shot compositions and the over digital look of everything really puts me off personally. Phantom Menace is the only of the trio that looks the most natural and could fit right in with the original trilogy, but again, as a film it doesn't end up working.

 

I remember Brian DePalma defending George in an interview saying that both Phantom Menace and his own Mission to Mars are meant to be watched with child's eyes. It seems to me DePalma's mind ommited the political discussion scenes of TPM but I don't know... I can easily slip into my inner child's mind and be entranced by what you call a film oriented towards a more innocent, younger audience -I had never watched Neverending Story until recently and I adored it, for example- but there's something about the prequels that just bores me to death. And I'm a very casual SW fan in general. I like the universe and the characters just fine, but it never changed my life as it did with so many people.

 

I just think that George could have done so much better, either with the prequels themselves or the small movies he always talks about but never seems to get around doing.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I really don't get why I'm criticized for enjoying the Ewok movies. ROTJ is basically one of them, it just also has a space battle.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

15 minutes ago, Muad'Dib said:

I remember Brian DePalma defending George in an interview saying that both Phantom Menace and his own Mission to Mars are meant to be watched with child's eyes.

 

I've heard this argument before from fans and it's a real copout excuse and insults the intelligence of children who've demonstrated that they can appreciate far better films than the SW prequels, whether those better films were made for them or for adults. Or both.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

40 minutes ago, Muad'Dib said:

The problem with the prequels is -in my opinion- that there is no passion behind them. Sure, it's got some neat ideas and some cool indivual scenes, but as a whole, none of the films really add up. Considering Lucas comes from the Coppola. Spielberg, Scorsese, DePalma group of filmmakers the prequels are directed like shit. The shots are flat, there are no interesting shots compisitions and the over digital look of everything really puts me off personally. Phantom Menace is the only of the trio that looks the most natural and could fit right in with the original trilogy, but again, as a film it doesn't end up working.

 

I remember Brian DePalma defending George in an interview saying that both Phantom Menace and his own Mission to Mars are meant to be watched with child's eyes. It seems to me DePalma's mind ommited the political discussion scenes of TPM but I don't know... I can easily slip into my inner child's mind and be entranced by what you called a film oriented towards a more innocent, younger audience -I had never watched Neverending Story until recently and I adored it, for example- but there's something about the prequels that just bores me to death. And I'm a very casual SW fan in general. I like the universe and the characters just fine, but it never changed my life as it did with so many people.

 

I just think that George could have done so much better, either with the prequels themselves or the small movies he always talks about but never seems to get around doing.

George apparently makes films all the time, he just doesn't distribute them and keeps them for his friends. At least that's what he said when asked in an interview. I think it may have been at the Force Awakens premiere. 

[Simon McBride 113]

I think the movies are fine movies. I don't understand the arguments against the acting. I guess it's pretty bad in some spots, but so was the original trilogy. I think we can all agree that Jar-Jar was practically useless. The fight scenes are fine even if a tad unrealistic. The worst part of the whole trilogy in my opinion is either the unbelievability of Anakin turning to the dark side. That and "I hate sand." Pretty much every other part is enjoyable to watch. That's how I see it. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Anakin's turn is not unbelievable, though. I never got why everyone was so obsessed with that. His passion is his undoing. We see it all the time in our own real world. People do stupid shit because of love.

[Simon McBride 113]

It was poorly portrayed and acted out. It was obvious that he didn't want to turn, but he did to save Padme. The problem was that this wasn't well represented and it felt like he just randomly turned to the dark side. It would have been believable if he talked about Padme more or something, but I felt like she was only mentioned in passing. Once he was on the dark side it was totally believable that he was evil, but the transition was flawed.

[Thor 7,521]

10 hours ago, Will said:

@Thor, I am delighted to find someone who like me isn't dismissive of the prequels. And you're a film critic! I'd love to hear your thoughts sometime on the prequels. I know you said that you didn't feel like getting too deep into that argument today, but I hope you will feel more inclined to explain your thinking in the future. 

 

For me, it's a "mood" thing. For such an eternal topic that has been discussed to death over the years, one has to be in the mood -- especially when you're on our side and have to defend them; that requires more energy than the easier side of just dismissing them. Something I could maybe go into on a Friday afternoon, after I've had a beer or two. But I see that the topic is already underway above.

 

(and yes, Stefan, I currently work as a film critic -- I thought you'd have picked up on that by now).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

How on earth would I have picked that up?

 

Good for you though.

[Thor 7,521]

2 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

How on earth would I have picked that up?

 

You seem to read everything here, so I thought maybe you had seen me do press screenings, festivals, interviews and such. But that's OK. It's not something that I like to flaunt -- especially not in film forums -- so if you didn't know, that's kinda good to know.  

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I post a lot. That doesnt mean I read everything.

 

I thought you went there because you were a celeb. Werent you in Norwegian Big Brother?

[Thor 7,521]

42 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

I post a lot. That doesnt mean I read everything.

 

I thought you went there because you were a celeb. Werent you in Norwegian Big Brother?

 

Ha, ha...no, not quite. The celeb thing was 10 years ago, and for something quite different. Kudos for remembering, though.

 

Back on-topic, do we also count the non-canon/affiliated movies in this thought experiment -- like the EWOK movies, the animated thingies etc.?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

8 hours ago, Hawmy said:

It was poorly portrayed and acted out. It was obvious that he didn't want to turn, but he did to save Padme. The problem was that this wasn't well represented and it felt like he just randomly turned to the dark side. It would have been believable if he talked about Padme more or something, but I felt like she was only mentioned in passing. Once he was on the dark side it was totally believable that he was evil, but the transition was flawed.

 

And then as Darth Vader in the original trilogy she is never mentioned again! You'd think that her being Anakin's reason to turn to the dark side they would at least talk with Palpatine about her at least *once* but nope. Never gets brought up. 

 

And don't try to justify it by saying the lava erasing that part of his memory or some bullshit like that. 

 

Quote

For me, it's a "mood" thing. For such an eternal topic that has been discussed to death over the years, one has to be in the mood -- especially when you're on our side and have to defend them; that requires more energy than the easier side of just dismissing them. Something I could maybe go into on a Friday afternoon, after I've had a beer or two. But I see that the topic is already underway above.

 

So you're saying you defend them because it feels more difficult than bashing them? Feels like hipster talk.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

There was simply no reason to mention her in the OT.

[mstrox 6,651]

Well, 18+ years had passed by the time we saw Vader in Star Wars.  I don't talk much about things that happened to me 18 years ago, even things that made me furious or were formative.  In the ~5 interactions we saw with Vader and the Emperor in the original trilogy (all of which were plot bits, not character enhancement/conversation), it has never been confusing why they didn't talk about Padme.

 

If you want your Vader to be full of Padme angst and/or prequel reminiscences, there are a few issues of Marvel's recent Darth Vader comic book that deal with Naboo/Padme, and she's actually on the cover of Darth Vader #24 which comes out tomorrow.  He also geeks out (comedically) over a Naboo N1 starfighter in a recent episode of LEGO Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures. 

 

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/e/e4/SWDarthVader24final.png

[Wojo 2,453]

19 minutes ago, Muad'Dib said:

 

And then as Darth Vader in the original trilogy she is never mentioned again! You'd think that her being Anakin's reason to turn to the dark side they would at least talk with Palpatine about her at least *once* but nope. Never gets brought up. 

 

And don't try to justify it by saying the lava erasing that part of his memory or some bullshit like that. 

 

Wha? You really want Vader and Palpatine to have discussed Padme during the events of the original trilogy? A character that in all likelihood hadn't really been invented or at least fleshed out before the planning phase for Episode I in the mid '90s. Vader asks where she is, Palpy lies, Vader screams no.... And that's it. Any lingering longing or loving missing her is wiped clean by the Dark Side. And just not existing in the story back then. 

 

Lost ESB script excerpts have just been uncovered from George's vault. 

Emperor: Yes, he would be a powerful ally. Can he be turned? 

Vader: He will join us or die, my master. Oh... By the way... 

Emperor: Yes, my apprentice? 

Vader: I still miss my wife...

Emperor: It is the Light Side you feel. Let go of your attachment. 

Vader: But master, it hurts. I loved her so much. 

Emperor: Your testicles were burned off on Mustafar.

Vader: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Quote

Wha? You really want Vader and Palpatine to have discussed Padme during the events of the original trilogy? A character that in all likelihood hadn't really been invented or at least fleshed out before the planning phase for Episode I in the mid '90s.

 

That's my point, Lucas didn't plan Anakin's fall to the dark side at all.

[Wojo 2,453]

Right. We know this. The central plot line and thesis of the prequels was very poorly defined and implemented. That's the missed opportunity, why the prequels fundamentally failed. But they looked very clean and nice and pretty, so if you just want fun gee whiz bang effects or have the attention span of a child, you'll love them. 

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Um, is that part directed towards me? I've been saying I don't care for the prequels.

[Wojo 2,453]

I don't remember. 

[Bilbo 3,709]

the true fan thing exists on both sides of the divedes and is equally pathetic on the OT side. 

 

 

 

[Will 2,215]

16 hours ago, Jilal said:

Will, this is a discussion forum. You're allowed to discuss things here.

 

 

True. Maybe a little bickering isn't too bad for me, as long as I keep it intelligent and civilized. 

10 hours ago, Stefancos said:

How on earth would I have picked that up?

 

Well, I've only been here since last year and I knew. 

[Wojo 2,453]

You have a young man's brain. 

[Will 2,215]

@Hawmy I agree that the story behind Anakin's turn was a little weak. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,554]

1 hour ago, WojinPA said:

I don't remember. 

 

#I don't remember.

I don't recall.

I have no memory

Of anything...

(absolutely) anything at all#

[Will 2,215]

9 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that ring theory thing about the visual/story/etc. parallels between the OT films and the Prequels? The repeated lines throughout the saga, etc? The infamous "it's like poetry, it rhymes"? If that's it, it's hardly subtle, and rest assured most people have noticed it. But how does that make the movies a masterpiece? I mean, sure, it sometimes leads to a few interesting bits, but overall, is that enough to make them good (or deep and meaningful) movies? Isn't that repetition even sometimes responsible for boring storytelling ("here we go again with the same ol', same ol', only a wee bit different")?

Plus, it doesn't take a genius to write two stories that are similar but with the characters in each story taking different paths, nor is it that hard to come up with visual parallels between the stories. Sure, it may require a bit more work and a bit more thinking, but it's it's definitely nothing unique to the Star Wars saga, nothing new Lucas came up with. If that ring theory is your main argument to defend the prequels, I'm afraid that's not good enough!

 

I think you misunderstand what the ring theory discusses, and therefore grossly underestimate the greatness of Lucas's achievement. 

 

Lucas clearly designed the trilogies to run in parallel in such a way that ANH and TPM corresponded, TESB and AOTC corresponded, etc. This was basically to show how Luke and Anakin took similar journeys. It's pretty obvious to many people.

 

But the ring theory argues, very convincingly, that those parallels are just the tip of the iceberg. Lucas seems to have used the technique of ring composition (chiasmus). Basically, using this technique, Lucas designed a second and much more intricate set of correspondences, in which TPM corresponds with ROTJ, AOTC with ESB, and ROTS with ANH. The essay shows how each pair corresponds, often in extremely subtle, astounding ways, and explains what ideas Lucas is trying to convey through the use of ring composition. 

 

The essay was downright astounding and revolutionized my thinking about SW. That's when I started to believe the prequels were masterpieces.

 

I'm assuming you haven't read the essay, and I think you should before declaring that the ring theory argument "isn't good enough."

 

Again, I think you don't understand how incredible it is to write a story that works within established complex continuity, is at least somewhat engaging and interesting, and contains both obvious and subtle parallels to the OT.

 

Even dealing only with ring composition, I don't think you realize how challenging it is to write a story within the constraints of keeping it parallel with an OT film.

 

I'm not aware of any other usage of ring composition, an ancient technique, in cinema.

 

I think you and others need to read this:

 

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ring-composition-chiasmus-hidden-artistry-star-wars-prequels/

 

If after that you still feel the same about the prequels, then I suppose nothing will be able to change your opinion. But I think reading this will at the very least give you a newfound respect for the trilogy.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Bollocks!

[Will 2,215]

I'll add that Lucas's apparent (never confirmed by him, but after reading the essay seeming nearly certain) use of chiasmus in SW is really a symbol of how he is an artist's artist.

 

He gave himself a challenge. He must have known that not many people would notice or care about the intricacy of the SW saga. He made it intricate anyway, seemingly just for the sake of art.

[Brónach 1,302]

I'll be ok if I'm not a Star Wars fan.

[Will 2,215]

3 hours ago, WojinPA said:

But they looked very clean and nice and pretty, so if you just want fun gee whiz bang effects or have the attention span of a child, you'll love them. 

 

Some may love them because of that, but I've always thought the originals were much more simple/child friendly than the prequels.

[Wojo 2,453]

So if you take a trio of good movies and make three more movies that take their pacing, rhythm, and major story moments from the earlier films, then those sequels by extension will also be good themselves? Even with crummy wooden dialogue and distracted acting? 

[Romão 2,274]

ROTS is such an atrocious movie. It gets worse everytime I rewatch it