Author Topic: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly  (Read 2972 times)

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2007, 05:54:33 pm »
Okay, okay, fine, you feel quite strong about this topic Krispen. I was just tossing out my opinions about the quality of the writing, the story, the characters, and the movies themselves.

As for how I can like Chrono Trigger but not Star Wars...I guess it's the same kind of thing that I can't understand about those who like Stargate but don't like Star Trek, and I'm a huge fan of both(though Stargate more than Trek as of late with realization of better writing and acting, among other things.)

I will still say this: Star Wars is boring. It has lots of CGI, fantastic music...but that's it. The acting is poor, the writing is poorer, there is no intelligent humour, nothing of real interest for me, but that may be due to my higher expectations. I'd say taste but taste is extremely relative and it would insult you, Krispen, and that's what I'm not trying to do.

In any case, I've said my piece, and so I duck out.

Mystic Frog King

  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 386
  • It's a secret to everybody!
    • View Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2007, 06:55:45 am »
I will still say this: Star Wars is boring. It has lots of CGI, fantastic music...but that's it. The acting is poor, the writing is poorer, there is no intelligent humour, nothing of real interest for me, but that may be due to my higher expectations. I'd say taste but taste is extremely relative and it would insult you, Krispen, and that's what I'm not trying to do.

I wouldn't go that far. In Episode 3, although the portrayal of Anakin was very bland, at the very least it was an enjoyable movie; both in the way that the fall from Jedi to Sith lord was rather well done, for all the movies other failings, and the fact that although the Action scenes may have been unnecessary and added nothing to the movie, at least they were enjoyable to watch.

I have seen all 6 films, however it is the fall of Anakin Skywalker which hit me hardest with the 'epicness' that Star Wars claims to have. All in all, while the films may not be brilliant examples of writing and acting, the franchise must be applauded for the in-depth material complimenting it all. In the original trilogy, references like 'Sith' and 'Clone Wars' were thrown in to add a semblance of depth to the movies- but now, today, in comics and novels under the 'Expanded Universe' brand we see layers of depth and while Star Wars has never truly escaped the label of cliche, it must be praised for lasting this long and having this much depth to the universe.

I'm not sure if I made myself clear there- I'm generally not very good at expressing my opinion on things like this. Essentially I'm taking the middle ground- I can see why Star Wars is so dear to so many, but at the same time I acknowledge that it is not a particularly fine example of screenplay or indeed, the Sci-fi genre. I'm also being rather controversial in citing 3 as my favorite of the films, but my judgment may be clouded as I haven't seen the original trilogy in over a year.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2007, 01:02:37 am »
I think the most common order of best to worst is 5,4,6,3,2,1.
I, and many others, like to think that Phantom Menace is far superior to Attack of the Clones. Attack of the Clones is actually one of the worst movies I've seen.

As for the cliches...well, what do you expect? Star Wars is just the Hero's Journey with a lightsaber and a hawt futuristic princess.

But Star Wars isn't all bad. The universe is great, and the mythology and spin offs it created are a good read. But not the cartoon series Clone Wars.

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2007, 01:16:27 am »
Well, if you want, MFK, I can point you to something that sums up my opinions more elequently than I can. (And before anyone cries foul declaring me unable to think for myself, I am simply letting it speak for me because it says it better than I could.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ecfuj2LFw

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2007, 01:31:37 am »
Ah, how morbid. I wonder what made him change his mind. I always love it when characters manage to survive.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2007, 07:43:17 am »
Yeah, but you also love trashy 80's pop.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2007, 12:57:17 pm »
We can all do with a bit more bright cheesiness. I absolutely abhor this current trend to say 'gritty/dark=good.' I see this all the time, people saying 'it should be darker'; 'this will be darker, it will be better.' Excuse me? Why? What makes it more realistic, because life is supposedly dark? When you make things dark for that sake, and start killing things like that, you end up with stories like Seneca's plays, or some of Euripides', which are far inferior to Aeschylos and Sophocles, which are not dark, and have death only in due measure. Come to think of it, it's probably a bit immature a writer and a weak escape route to kill characters without it being absolutely neccessary to the plot... and while I'm saying this this critiques myself, because I have that tendency in great measure, to just kill off characters in writing.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2007, 04:32:38 pm »
Yeah, but you also love trashy 80's pop.

Guess I should slit my wrists, put on a ten gallon hat, or talk about Escalades and gold chains more often.

OH SNAP!

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2007, 08:11:17 pm »
Here's my 1/50 of a dollar:

Star Wars used to be one of the best pieces of sci-fi out there.  Like it or not, creating a myth for a sci-fi environment is something that hadn't been done in film up to that point, and Lucas deserves the credit for that.  His characters may not be the most original, but they're certainly developed, and more importantly, it's easy to get attached to them.  It may not be a study of the human condition as such, but the process of a Republic turning into an Empire and the actions of the Empire itself incorporate a great deal of real-world history and political theory.  In that regard it's more subtle than Star Trek, which often chooses to beat the moral into us with a baseball bat.  And with regards to Star Wars' gradual decline in quality, Star Trek has suffered far, far worse.  Some may call Star Wars' writing mediocre at best, but the writing seen in the later Star Trek series is easily as bad as anything in the prequels, and there's more of it by virtue of being a TV series.

However, Star Wars does indeed have its bad points, and these can be seen in greater volume as time goes on.  Ignoring the technical errors they've committed (as if Star Trek was some kind of paragon of real science; I can name at least three sci-fi series off the top of my head that get it closer to right), the universe simply became far too bloated, partly as a result of all the expanded universe material.  It would be impossible for new readers to pick up the New Jedi Order books without first reading a great deal of other stuff.  Not only that, the same few characters kept doing everything, ignoring the fact that Han, Luke and Leia are not the only people in the entire galaxy who know how to solve problems.  They've also committed the error of killing people simply for the impact value, and not to serve any real plot function.  And yes, the prequels feature a sharp decline in the quality of the writing.  Unlike the original characters, the majority of the prequel characters are hopelessly bland, and the hero of the story, the great Anakin Skywalker, is an emo bitch that would make Squall Leonhart look at him and say "Dude, seriously, it's not that bad.  Calm down.  Jesus H. Christ."  Emo bitches aren't necessarily bad characters; I find Cloud, for example, to be quite effective in spite of the many people who hate him solely because of his mostly hormonal fanbase.  But Anakin manages to not be engaging at all.  It's easy to rationalize, but ultimately the onus falls on the actor and the director to make the character, and for the most part they didn't do a terribly good job of it.

On the issue of Star Wars' writing, I constantly hear that it's subpar.  For the classic trilogy, I'd have to say I disagree with this.  Very simply, if you can get attached to the characters, it's written well.  Han Solo may be a stereotype, but when it comes right down to it, he's a damned entertaining stereotype.  It's also hard to critique Star Wars for the originality of its characters on the basis of Star Trek when Star Trek's characters are stereotypes as well, and few of them, especially in the later series, even begin to approach the chemistry that Star Wars had.  Captain Kirk was written very well, but he's also a typical womanizer, and in fact he's very much like Han.  Picard was something of a stereotype as well; he resembles to a T a European aristocrat of the colonial age who sought to impress his moral values upon everyone else.

As far as dark being better, it isn't necessarily better, but like it or not, it is more realistic.  Star Wars is far better at being dark when it needs to be than Star Trek; in fact, in recent years criticism has been leveled at it for becoming too dark.  And that's actually one of the reasons that I think Star Wars is a more human story than Star Trek.  Trek tries to examine the human condition, but it does it through the lens of this bright, happy idealized future that none of us can really relate to except that we'd all like to spend an hour on the holodeck with (insert name of female celebrity here).  And the fact is, examining the real human condition from the point of view of a perfect society is damned patronizing.  They portray humans as this ascended race trying to bring their happy hippy commie civilization to everyone (and yes, it is a hippy commie civilization) because they think they have the moral superiority to do so.  Out of every rule the Federation ever established, the Prime Directive is the one we see consistently violated over the course of the many series and movies.  Are the crews ever punished for this?  On the contrary, they're held up on a pedestal as the premier examples of how to run a starship.  The Prime Directive is seemingly in place as nothing more than window dressing, as the Federation clearly thinks it's the shit.

Also, trashy 80s pop is awesome.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 08:19:07 pm by Hadriel »

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2007, 10:46:46 pm »
Correct me if I am mistaken, but nobody was talking about Star Trek. This isn't a Star Trek vs. Star Wars thread. It's an internal Star Wars issue.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2007, 11:11:40 pm »
Well, for what's it is worth for other readers, Star Trek is crap these days. If you want to debate its merits with "real" fans, then contrast other series only on the basis of the TOS, the TOS movies, and TNG. I've watched a good deal of DS9 now, and can agree that it's like "let's begin really phasing out TNG and starting BERMAN TREK." Voyager and Enterprise are much more boring than The Motion Picture ever was, because TMP had substance. Janeway, on the other hand, is a non-person, and even the awesome Quantum Leaper Scott Bakula couldn't save Enterprise.

Now we'll have to see how J.J. Abrams handles the franchise. MI3 was okay, but the Mission Impossible film franchise is sort of 'bland action Tom Cruise lol' to begin with. LOST is certainly good, so perhaps it has a chance. But I'm finding now that I have a problem accepting young actors' credibility. Picard is deep because he is aged like a fine wine, and Kirk was also responsible and mature. But seeing Matt Damon in Kirk's shoes (okay, it's not confirmed but, but allegedly seeing him) will be hard to stomach, simply because Damon is a young guy. Gary Sinise would make an ultimate McCoy, but Adrien Brody as Spock? I realize Spock has a pretty austere face, but Brody looks like he was scrambled in a transporter accident.



A big NO to that casting decision.

Damn, I'm having a hard time fighting off the desire to go ahead and correct / publish my TMP review on IMDB and Gamefaqs's Star Trek board right now...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 11:18:15 pm by ZeaLitY »

Kyronea

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1913
    • View Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2007, 12:02:49 am »
Well, for what's it is worth for other readers, Star Trek is crap these days. If you want to debate its merits with "real" fans, then contrast other series only on the basis of the TOS, the TOS movies, and TNG. I've watched a good deal of DS9 now, and can agree that it's like "let's begin really phasing out TNG and starting BERMAN TREK." Voyager and Enterprise are much more boring than The Motion Picture ever was, because TMP had substance. Janeway, on the other hand, is a non-person, and even the awesome Quantum Leaper Scott Bakula couldn't save Enterprise.
I agree to various parts to varying degrees. DS9 was almost completely free of Berman, in all reality, so it was not Berman Trek by any means. It was probably the best out of the five series, though TNG is a close competitor. Voyager, while horribly written in a lot of parts, had a couple interesting characters--Neelix, The Doctor--and was fun at times. (Robert Picardo especially is a brilliant actor, as can be seen with his acting as Richard Woolsey on Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Atlantis.) Enterprise had minor amounts of potential here and there, and started becoming vageuly decent in the fourth season, but otherwise it was complete crap and should never have been made. Pity Scott Bakula's talents were wasted.
Quote
Now we'll have to see how J.J. Abrams handles the franchise. MI3 was okay, but the Mission Impossible film franchise is sort of 'bland action Tom Cruise lol' to begin with. LOST is certainly good, so perhaps it has a chance. But I'm finding now that I have a problem accepting young actors' credibility. Picard is deep because he is aged like a fine wine, and Kirk was also responsible and mature. But seeing Matt Damon in Kirk's shoes (okay, it's not confirmed but, but allegedly seeing him) will be hard to stomach, simply because Damon is a young guy. Gary Sinise would make an ultimate McCoy, but Adrien Brody as Spock? I realize Spock has a pretty austere face, but Brody looks like he was scrambled in a transporter accident.
I have low expectations for Abram's handling of Trek. The odds of the eleventh movie being any decent after the steaming pile of crap that was Nemesis--and that was with some actual writers who had worked on Trek before--are extremely low with Trek newbies, especially people who work on series' like "The New Adventures of Hercules" "LOST" and "MI3."

And as for Matt Damon and Adrien Brody as Kirk and Spock respectively? Please excuse me while I go rip my head off and throw it at the wall about how stupid an idea that would be. They need new actors never seen before in anything.
Quote


A big NO to that casting decision.
Indeed.
Quote
Damn, I'm having a hard time fighting off the desire to go ahead and correct / publish my TMP review on IMDB and Gamefaqs's Star Trek board right now...
Oh? This ought to be fun to read, if/when you post it. And I had no idea GameFAQs had a Star Trek board...

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10797
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2007, 01:18:15 am »
Here goes. I'll have to edit it for gamefaqs and IMDB posting.

~

The Motion Picture is, above all else strong medicine -- the moonshine of Star Trek. Its theme and hold is so strong that casual or unready fans will miss it, and merely come away with the distaste of watching a real crisis to earth unfold in seriousness. Those interested and ready will come away perturbed, though satisfied. The spirit and overall message of Star Trek is boiled down to its perfect essence, with all other factors and conventions removed. The V'Ger spells the possible destruction of earth. Kirk and the crew are unsettled; Bones's pulse is racing; Spock is withdrawn and cold; Scotty is overworked and concerned, and only Chekov and Sulu are left to chance humor at the situation. The Enterprise is no longer a safe harbor; it can kill and destroy as well as it can convey its passengers. So too is the bridge no longer warm. It is a terrifying cross between the space drama Spartan bridge of the Enterprise E with the warmth of the D, producing something truly practical but sterile. There are automatic warning sirens, enough to cause heart attacks and aches in a split second. The Enterprise cannot know that she is the last chance of salvation for the earth; she will only hold up by the merits of her crew, who are facing the gravest danger they've ever known.

With the Enterprise no longer a sword and shield, the stage is reduced to man versus the infinity. The V'Ger personifies cold, infinite darkness by becoming its opposite -- knowledgeable, intelligent sentient. But the two are indistinguishable; the V'Ger is cold and barren, an orphan of the stars wandering in perpetual need and agony. It has no friend, and neither can it empathize or link with others on a common basis or at least, something to agree on in conversation. It is the equivalent of a drifting supernova, left to burn up anything in its path and wander the universe forever. Like the automated Borg, obsessed with assimilating information and forcing compliance by all individuals assimilated, the V'Ger pursues its cold ideal because it is slave to it. It has no emotion, nor humanity; it can never challenge its ideal because that is the programming, and the programming leads to the Creator. The chance at finding the machine God itself is illogical, but hardwired into Voyager 6. There is no reprieve from this deathly directive. Cold logic, by itself, is as dead as the stars. There is nothing to wonder at them, view them, explore them. There is only the tired machination of the universe and its quiet, meaningless observation.

That is Data's salvation. Data desires to become like humanity; he is programmed to be free from his programming and pursue his own purpose, path, and behavior. Though lacking emotions, even the unused memory conduits of lost friends and acquaintances give him knowledge of what loss is like. He has friends, aspirations, and shortcomings, rendering him human like the crew, sometimes even more so according to Picard. But the V'Ger is totally alone. This takes the sheer villainy and threat to earth to a new level, as the V'Ger assumes the very identity of oblivion and faces earth with it. Kirk and the crew are repeatedly frustrated in attempting to understand and deal with the entity because it is as nothing, its programming like the mathematical models governing the formation of planets and quasars -- automatic and above -- or far below -- the capacity to be reasoned with or its own capacity to change. It cannot even speak with the crew directly, assuming the peurile envoy of Ilia. How evident that the creators stood before her! How amazingly obvious their superiority through speech, intelligence, emotion, and humanity! Spock weeps because he knows this. He is finally free of the Vulcan ritualized ideology of logic. He can still use it to his advantage in the future for controlling himself, but he will never end up like Sarek, reduced to dementia and emotional expression from years of repression.

It is obvious, and the crew see the obviousness. Their wonderment at the pure engineering and existence of the V'Ger's shell craft is rendered empty, exemplified by Spock's ultimate statement that the V'Ger is merely a child, bereft of reason and humanity. This is how ugly bags of water can subvert something AUs in diameter; how they can subvert pure energy and plasma; how they can become the masters and gods of the universe. Humanity is God. The reason, the passion, and the desires of Kirk and the crew empower it. The arguably sentient logic is etiolated once humanity trumps it with its leaps of logic and intuition. The power to understand, weep, desire, know, and define is all afforded by an "imperfect" biological medium, affording beauty through the chaos of organic, electrical signals. What is machine logic, even at the highest level, but a mathematical model, fated to execute its directive and remain dormant forever? To lie in the death of a determined fate? And what is God, but life? The power to create and define its purpose and ambitions is God; humanity is God! Spock, with his pained compassion, is God! Bones, with his wisdom, is God! Sulu and Chekov, with their humor in crisis, are God! Decker and Ilia, with his transcendent desire and her residual feelings, are God! Scotty, with his dogged loyalty and service, is God! And Kirk, with his unyielding desire to know, discover, and love the experience -- and the galaxy he explores -- is God. Nothing can compare, regardless of its size or processing capacity, to that which we call humanity.

And our adventure is beginning as we realize and understand this. The Motion Picture devotes 144 minutes to this fact, taking human beings beyond the animal kingdom assumption of superiority to a galactic scale of illumination and beyond. Familiar Star Trek conventions of humor, safety, and peripheral drama (such as romance and physical fighting) are all eschewed to focus on the primary reason for being. The experience is a mind-meld with the universe of Star Trek, revealing everything it stands for in one stroke of power and light. One is perturbed because a better external appeal for one's own existence and illumination is not to be found. Whatever our humble origins as pumping proteins on a rock, we have grown and now have carte blanche to grow as we see fit. To discern the light of humanity, and to know one's true capacity as a human being, is to become truly self-aware. And The Motion Picture, and all its good counterpart episodes, invite one to this realization and wisdom -- to boldly go where no one has gone before.

That is the smile of Picard at the open and close of an adventure.

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2007, 03:18:33 am »
LOST is certainly good

Woah, steady on there. While I'll admit that the build-up of tension and backstory in Lost is good, it is almost formulaeic in that every week the mystery(ies) are merely propagated. I read in the Radio Times that Abrams had plans enough for 8 series. Eight series! Just imagine 5 or more series of the same formulaic story over and over. I finally overcame the addiction and stopped watching Lost after a series and a half; I've decided to just wait till it finishes then read the plot summary on wikipedia.

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Re: Star Wars: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2007, 09:43:12 am »
Correct me if I am mistaken, but nobody was talking about Star Trek.

The guy in the video Kyronea posted did.  I was responding to those points, since he appears to be using them as justification for his views.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 09:53:47 am by Hadriel »