I watched the original Star Wars last night... [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : I watched the original Star Wars last night...



Worf101
02-13-2007, 04:57 AM
And for some reason, it left me 'flat". I expected to feel the same way I do whenever I watch a movie I love ("The Quiet Man", "They Were Expendable", "Air Force", "Red River" etc...) for the umpteenth time happy and joyful. But for some reason I just couldn't get into it anymore. I found the acting dreadful, the endless patter of C3PO had me ready to stick my head in an oven right behind Jar Jar Binks for most annoying creation in the history of mankind.

I don't get it. The movie didn't change (although I guess technically it did... thanks alot George) so it must be me. Although I'm older, fater and wiser, I stil love the movies I love. That's never changed. I was at one of the frist showings in NY City. Young and fresh faced on leave from the Army. I absolutely loved the film it was a revelation. But now, only watching "Saturday Night Fever" feels more dated. I don't get this.

I know that the stories a borrowed mish mash of legends and tales and not a little bit of Herbert's "Dune" and for a while it was legendary. But I was recently re-watching the LOTR extended etc.. box sets and I was riveted like never before. Has the the trilogy with its mix of drama, horror and fine acting basically thrown Star Wars and other "lighter fare" out the window for me?

Da Worfster

PeruvianSkies
02-13-2007, 07:19 AM
There seems to be multiple things that could be happening here...

First, your familiarity with the original trilogy has grown to a point where there's really nothing 'new' or perhaps 'exciting' anymore. Nothing fresh. Yet, other films that you love and adore can still have impact over time, sure. Some films hold up better than others. I have never personally been a huge fan of the STAR WARS franchise and have stuck with my guns over the years about them. Do I watch them? Sure. Do I think they are the best films ever made? Hardly. I can appreciate what the first film did with its groundbreaking effects and such, but nothing more than that.

Second thing that seems to be happening is the sliding scale of action films. I recently revisited CONAN THE BARBARIAN a few weeks ago and while at one point in time (like 1983) that film was an awesome action flick, while looking at it today it seems slow, and dull. The movie is very patient with it's climax and there are alot of moments of down time. Today's movies are fast paced and more like a music video than anything else. Fast editing, quick shots, timelapsed storylines, etc. Nowadays if you give your audience a split second to think than they immediately become bored.

Unfortunately people have forgotten how to watch movies. They've forgotten how to love and adore them for what they are. They have been dumbed down to the point where people are unable to squeeze thought into them. We are too worried about being 'entertained' and people mistake thought-engagement with a movie being too sophisticated. As if people can't think and have fun at the same time? Right? Yet, for me the most fun I've had are in the discussions of really thought-provoking films like when a group of my friends and I sat around for hours talking about the ending of 12 MONKEYS and each of us had a difference of opinion...is the boy the same as the Bruce Willis character...etc etc.

As time passes I think you will find that more and more of the movies that you once cherished will not necessarily have the same meaning to you, but perhaps a more nostalghic notion instead. I wouldn't necessarily worry about this phase either as much as I would be worried about the new ear of poor filmmaking. Movies like LOTR at least help in setting a new level of excellence, yet I also rewatched the first film not too long ago realizing that it was 5 years old already and I noticed just how dated some of the special effects already are. The digital work is not as good as I had original thought when I first saw it in 2001.

kexodusc
02-13-2007, 07:24 AM
I'm the same way, Worfster. The originals were great because they were so different - but as far as movies go, they only thing they really brought to the table was good special effects in the day.
I always felt the critics were way too hard on the newer films - not because they were better than most people think, but because they weren't much worse than the originals. They didn't contain anything the originals didn't (except for a bit more terrible dialogue). Substitute C3P0 and Ewoks with Jar Jar and other minor annoyances. I think it's just a simple fact these are really kids movies that had adult appeal, but remain more appealing to kids. Too much of a good thing and all that, I guess.

The bar has been raised...so it should be...

Kam
02-13-2007, 07:28 AM
And for some reason, it left me 'flat". I expected to feel the same way I do whenever I watch a movie I love ("The Quiet Man", "They Were Expendable", "Air Force", "Red River" etc...) for the umpteenth time happy and joyful. But for some reason I just couldn't get into it anymore. I found the acting dreadful, the endless patter of C3PO had me ready to stick my head in an oven right behind Jar Jar Binks for most annoying creation in the history of mankind.

I don't get it. The movie didn't change (although I guess technically it did... thanks alot George) so it must be me. Although I'm older, fater and wiser, I stil love the movies I love. That's never changed. I was at one of the frist showings in NY City. Young and fresh faced on leave from the Army. I absolutely loved the film it was a revelation. But now, only watching "Saturday Night Fever" feels more dated. I don't get this.

I know that the stories a borrowed mish mash of legends and tales and not a little bit of Herbert's "Dune" and for a while it was legendary. But I was recently re-watching the LOTR extended etc.. box sets and I was riveted like never before. Has the the trilogy with its mix of drama, horror and fine acting basically thrown Star Wars and other "lighter fare" out the window for me?

Da Worfster

i get in endless debates with a good friend (director buddy) about star wars, the two trilogies, and the matrix trilogy. some points we always argue on if the new trilogy diminishes the old trilogy. when you watch darth vader in the old trilogy (the first time) he's a mystery, his origins are far more diabolical when you don't know what they are outside of ben's explanation... he was seduced by the dark side of the force.

i watched the original a few days ago too, and what really caught me was the obi wan-darth finale fight. having seen these two, in their first fight, have one of the best (if not the best) light saber fight ever (just watched revenge of the sith too recently) now reduced to a guy in a stiff suit and alec guiness waving lighted batons around really was weak. the impact of the moment is huge, and possibly the most important (storywise) light saber fight, and an actual action sequence that moves story forward rather than puts the movie in a 'time out' to showcase action and cgi for the purpose of action and cgi (ala 99% of the new trilogy's action sequences).

also, knowing darth's history in painfully exquisite detail ("you are so.... beautiful...." "i should have more power pout pout") takes away from seeing this menacing monolith that has no problems killing his own men for even marginal incompetance. i think the new trilogy did nothing but belittle the menace of darth, and not in a good way. it's almost a no-win situation for lucas, or at least, he gave himself the hardest task to do.

he gave one of cinema's greatest villains with darth vader, and in the original trilogy, gave him his redemption. having seen return of the jedi didn't diminish darth at all, but made him that much cooler of a badguy in star wars and empire. BUT seeing him as the snivelling jackass in the first 3 movies does diminish him. how do you tell the backstory and humanize a villain who we've already seen redeemed? that's not an easy task. i don't think there are many who could successfully pull it off.

that's the problem, (ive heard, i havent seen it) with hannibal rising. there are certain backstories that shouldn't be told simply because telling them will diminish the story that HAS been told. i think that's what's happenned with the original trilogy, especially when relationships were simply thrown at us for no other reason other than to throw them at us. e.g. yoda saying goodbye to chewbacca. why? what purpose did that serve other than to have the audience cheer at chewbacca's mention? i was seriously surprised that there wasn't a birth going on in the chamber next door to padme where we would over here Mr. and Mrs. Solo debating the name of their child, and in the room next to them, Mr. and Mrs. Calrissian. why not? that's the only reason to mention chewbacca's name, might as well get everyone else in there too. hell, might as well have mr and mrs greedo show up at the hospital!

lucas made the connections meaningless to the story, and diminished their importance, so upon seeing the character's again, with all this new, unneccessary information, it does diminish it. the only way i like to enjoy watching the original trilogy (minus all the added crap), is by mentally blocking out everything from the new trilogy.

GMichael
02-13-2007, 07:34 AM
I've got to agree. It was more of a special effects movie than a great story. And now SE's have reached a much higher level.
But try this. Watch it again with someone who's never seen any of the SW's movies. I know, tough trick, but it can be done. I watched it with my wife a few weeks ago. At first, I thought, "did I really like this?." But as it went on and I saw how my wife reacted to it, I started to get into it more. In the end, I had that old feeling back again.

Troy
02-13-2007, 09:33 AM
Pssst, this just in: Star Wars was always trashy juvenalia.

And this from a kid (17 in 1977) that paid to see SW more than 10 times that summer. Man, I was so over the top obesessed with it, I was the punchline to jokes in my circle of friends. I was a teenaged Star Wars geek.

I grew up, I got over it. I worked on SW toys all thru the 90s for Galoob Toys. Believe me, that cured me of the SW mystique completely.

Like Kex, I was also amused at all the SW junkies and press poo-pooing the second 3 movies for their bad acting, cornball writing and general predictability. Yeah, Hayden Christenson is no genius thespian like Mark Hammil, right? Lucas was never good with actors. That he wrangled such flat performances from A-listers like MacGregor and Neeson only shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

No, Lucas's strength was always FX and those are only as entertaining as long as they remain believable to audiences. Film technology has bypassed SW by light years already so what's left to latch onto?

The original movies were a cultural event. They were huge. They changed the industry on many levels, but the next 3 could never live up to that legacy. The genie was already out of the bottle. The Matrix trilogy is a good parallel in the sense that the second movie had no real surprises. So much of what made the first Matrix SO good was the whole "copper top" premise. It was so out there and surprising. You make a second movie and well, we all know that already, there's no big surprise. The thing that made the first one great is old hat already.

Conan the Barbarian was never a good movie. Maybe if you were 12, but as a movie for adults? No way. Peru, did the movies change, or did you?

I'm no fan of the LOTR cycle either. Time will not be good to these films either.

GMichael
02-13-2007, 09:43 AM
And this from a kid (17 in 1977) .

That would make you 5 days older than me. What's up old timer?

Troy
02-13-2007, 09:49 AM
That would make you 5 days older than me. What's up old timer?

08/18/60, you whippersnapper.

Dusty Chalk
02-13-2007, 09:52 AM
08/18/60, you whippersnapper.

Your signature should not be longer than your post.Sig included for irony.

kexodusc
02-13-2007, 10:23 AM
Sig included for irony.
Heh heh...that's pretty funny.

I think all 6 Star Wars movies are ok as far as movies go. I love the stories, but it's mostly childhood-nostalgia that I cling to. I just laugh at all the people that bash the prequel trilogy for sucking for reasons x, y, and z, when the same damn problems existed in the originals and were so easily overlooked, even enjoyed. Aside from the original Star Wars movies being put on an impossibly high pedestal that would never again be matched no matter how good the new ones were, the prequel triology's biggest problem was that society had changed -society is much more cynical in the 21st century. It's cool to be the bad guy, to criticize, negativity is at an all time high, and sarcasm is en vogue. So it's cool to bash Star Wars. It started in the media, and snowballed from there.

Yet when you ask people why they dislike the movies, the level of specific scene-recollection people have for these movies they so loathed and surely saw only once, and definitely didn't purchase for their personal video libraries, is astonishing. I have one friend in particular who hated these movies so bad he bought all 3 DVD's on release day. Man, that's some hatred.

I think for all the negativity they received, the box office success, the DVD sales success, and expanded fan base of the Star Wars universe tell the truth about the public's feelings toward them vs other modern day movies. I know I didn't buy The Incredible Hulk, Planet of the Apes, Pearl Harbor, and War of the Worlds because I thought they sucked. Can't think of any movies I knew sucked yet still decided to buy. They didn't change the world like the originals...but I can't think of any other movies parts 4, 5, and 6 that kept people coming back for more.

Except maybe Police Academy.

Troy
02-13-2007, 11:42 AM
Sig included for irony.

Always doing my best to add a little irony to my pal's day.

Somehow I DO think you get the point of my sig though, doncha?

Worf101
02-13-2007, 08:23 PM
Funny that you mention "Conan the Barbarian" as a movie you thought was great that doesn't hold up today. I feel exactly the OPPOSITE about that movie. I love it to death, quote lines from it constantly. To me it holds up because it is deliberately paced... The scenes of Conan and Subatai running across the open plains... I loved it and will watch it anytime, hell I bought it!!!! But SW for some reason left me feeling dry and bored. Eh.... interesing..

Da Worfster

PeruvianSkies
02-13-2007, 09:43 PM
Worf...don't get me wrong. I still enjoy CONAN THE BARBARIAN. I wasn't implying that the film is a total dud, but I am giving my thoughts on what most people nowadays consider an 'action' film. To me, Director John Milius's CONAN THE BARBARIAN is highly underrated as a more poetic film, which most people forget due to CONAN THE DESTROYER, which is more of an 'action' film. Also, it is rated PG instead of R like CONAN THE BARBARIAN and does not contain near the emotional level.

Worf101
02-14-2007, 07:25 AM
Worf...don't get me wrong. I still enjoy CONAN THE BARBARIAN. I wasn't implying that the film is a total dud, but I am giving my thoughts on what most people nowadays consider an 'action' film. To me, Director John Milius's CONAN THE BARBARIAN is highly underrated as a more poetic film, which most people forget due to CONAN THE DESTROYER, which is more of an 'action' film. Also, it is rated PG instead of R like CONAN THE BARBARIAN and does not contain near the emotional level.
Now I git ya.

Thanks.

Worf101
02-14-2007, 07:29 AM
I guess you all put a circle round various aspects of this discussion pretty well for me. Thanks. There's a lot of bad I guess I overlooked in the Original Trilogy and I can see now how I might've been way overboard in my hatred of Episodes 1-3 through misplaced reverence of the first three. God I HATE it when you guys are RIGHT!!! LOL. That's part of the reason I love this board so much. I can bounce any film musings off you folks and I know I'll get some good feedback. May not be what I WANT to hear but it'll mostly be reasoned, well thought out and passionate responses on a subject we all love.

Da Worfster

topspeed
02-14-2007, 10:32 AM
Star Wars, the original one when Han shoots first, was great for two reasons:
* Most of us were kids that saw it 16 times (Ha! Beat ya Troy ;) ) and had every friggin toy known to man
* The character development was better and wasn't as dumbed down as the prequels.

There is a certain magic to being that involved in a certain culture, even one created by Hollywood. As adults, we try to relive that magic by immersing ourselves in the movie, hoping that for the next few hours we can feel like we did when we were kids, experiencing that world as innocents. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I get the joy of seeing it through the eyes of my kids, which is rewarding in itself.

My kids, 7 and 5, are SW fanatics. They love Lego Star Wars on the PS2 and have 4...count 'em four...light sabers, the latest coming just this past weekend for my youngest's birthday. If one of the SW movies are on, which is about every second of the day if you have satellite, they will watch it. 'Course, so will I...

Anywho, I don't agree that the acting was just as bad in SW as it was in the prequel's. For the life of me, I never will understand why Lucas had someone as enigmatic and beautiful as Natalie Portman talk in that annoyingly monotone voice. She's a good actress, as is Neeson, and yet the scene in ROTS when she's talking with Annakin about how in love she is made me throw up in my mouth. At least Ford made Solo a compelling character. When you were kid, you and your friends would battle over who got to be Han. I doubt today's kids battle over who gets to be that whiner, Anikin. Therein lies the problem; most of the characters in the prequel's weren't compelling. They were annoying.

As for Conan, I think SW has held up better and Barbarian definitely held up better than Destroyer. Although Destroyer did have Olivia D'abo, an actress that definitely made an impression on this young male teen.

http://www.dielegende.de/Bilder_extern/Laterna_Magica/Olivia_DAbo_1.jpg

Dusty Chalk
02-14-2007, 06:50 PM
Somehow I DO think you get the point of my sig though, doncha?No, not really -- if you hate sigs that much, turn them off (under User CP). If you really mean not for them to be that short, then that was exactly my point.

Brainstorm
02-23-2007, 08:51 AM
Those so called limited editions are not the originals, if they where then why isnít the soundtrack original to that year of 1977?

Iíve conducted tests with various laserdiscs a very early PAL laserdisc that was produced back in 1982, but I didnít have to do that to know what sounds original with nearly 6 different types of Dolby stereo soundtrack and 4 different versions available to the consumer.

The version that we should have got on this so limited edition should have been the 70mm six-track Dolby stereo (Dolby format 42) but looks like Lucasfilm is too tight to share this with the fans.

Anyway need I say anymore, all the limited editions are not the original realise versions they are the 1992 laserdisc soundtrack versions. If you where to listen to Return of the Jedi the so called original 1983 version.The Princesses dialogue which is paned to the left on screen channel

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/03/300px-Return_of_the_jedi_3.jpg
"Well looks like Iím stuck here, trouble is, I donít know where here is.Ē and then pans back to the centre channel ďMaybe you can help meĒ

The early laserdiscs of the Star Wars films is how it sounded in the cinema, and the later versions arenít there the home cinema versions but that's only Dolby stereo not the 70mm Dolby stereo (Dolby format 42) versions which we really want.

One of the reasons why I brought DVD in the first place, seeing that more of the original soundtracks of different types of films where making there way onto DVD during the later 1990ís. It wasnít until late 1999 until I brought my first DVD player a SONY, after a few years I noticed the horror with these abomination re-mix versions of some classic films being totally destroyed.

Anyway I canít say how much this subject really depresses me, anyway got some rope?:19: