Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Warpaint
- Start date
Lutso
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Because he contributes absolutely nothing to the franchise other than embarrassment. He serves no purpose in the story other than "comedy relief", which most of us find to be an unnecessary endeavor.
That was Lucas' shoed-in solution to "why is he in the films?" You're right, anyone could have done it. I call BS.
Because he contributes absolutely nothing to the franchise other than embarrassment. He serves no purpose in the story other than "comedy relief", which most of us find to be an unnecessary endeavor.
That was Lucas' shoed-in solution to "why is he in the films?" You're right, anyone could have done it. I call BS.
GiovanniDekkers
Active Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Maybe he'll return in Rebels and survives untill the destruction of Alderaan.
I've fantasized about it many times, maybe it'll happen
Maybe he'll return in Rebels and survives untill the destruction of Alderaan.
I've fantasized about it many times, maybe it'll happen
jonny5
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Re: Balance of the Sith and Clone wars
The problem with the Clone Wars series as a kids show is they were always going to run up to the point where they either ended things incomplete or they would have to kill off Asoka thus traumatizing an audience of younglings.
Just as LFL allows Peter Mayhew to go around saying "Chewie lives" they don't want to upset a bunch of young Asoka fans.
Balance is such a zen word in this context. In the end it all depends on that notorious 'certain point of view' of which Kenobi spoke. To the Jedi, 'balance' means the good guys win. How exactly is that 'balance'? Ki Adi Mundi's confusion about Sith extinction is part of the Jedi blindness Yoda mentioned to the rising SITH threat. The SITH 'rule of two' was established so the SITH could continue to operate unobserved. They certainly wouldn't send a memo to the Jedi council saying:
[Voice of Groo from Despicable Me]
"Dere goot guyz,
Weez is make rule to only be moving in groups of 2, or less.
Hugs and kisses,
De Sith"
[/Voice of Groo from Despicable Me]
Re: Balance of the Sith and Clone wars
The problem with the Clone Wars series as a kids show is they were always going to run up to the point where they either ended things incomplete or they would have to kill off Asoka thus traumatizing an audience of younglings.
Just as LFL allows Peter Mayhew to go around saying "Chewie lives" they don't want to upset a bunch of young Asoka fans.
Balance is such a zen word in this context. In the end it all depends on that notorious 'certain point of view' of which Kenobi spoke. To the Jedi, 'balance' means the good guys win. How exactly is that 'balance'? Ki Adi Mundi's confusion about Sith extinction is part of the Jedi blindness Yoda mentioned to the rising SITH threat. The SITH 'rule of two' was established so the SITH could continue to operate unobserved. They certainly wouldn't send a memo to the Jedi council saying:
[Voice of Groo from Despicable Me]
"Dere goot guyz,
Weez is make rule to only be moving in groups of 2, or less.
Hugs and kisses,
De Sith"
[/Voice of Groo from Despicable Me]
jonny5
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I agree Jar Jar was over done but he was a 'hero' of the battle of Naboo and even stupid heroes attain fame and power. He was GL's 'useful idiot'.
Yes, it 'could have been anybody' but then you'd have GL trying to explain that this new character conveniently showed up to be used as a pawn in step 345,689 of Palpatine's carefully orchestrated 7,878,678 step plan for galactic domination, and take the time to show the newcomer was not motivated by their own evil, but somehow under Palpatine's manipulation, and really who has time for that when you've got a ready made stooge waiting in the wings?
I agree Jar Jar was over done but he was a 'hero' of the battle of Naboo and even stupid heroes attain fame and power. He was GL's 'useful idiot'.
Yes, it 'could have been anybody' but then you'd have GL trying to explain that this new character conveniently showed up to be used as a pawn in step 345,689 of Palpatine's carefully orchestrated 7,878,678 step plan for galactic domination, and take the time to show the newcomer was not motivated by their own evil, but somehow under Palpatine's manipulation, and really who has time for that when you've got a ready made stooge waiting in the wings?
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
...and not just anyone could've made the motion to give Palpatine powers.
People forget the Star Wars movies are kids movies. Jar Jar served a purpose, a very real purpose - he grounded the films and gave the kids something to latch on to. You didn't like? That's fine.
...and not just anyone could've made the motion to give Palpatine powers.
jonny5
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I'm kinda not buying the 'it's a kids movie' defense anymore. I've used it myself but today I'd like to point out
that a lot of people have shoveled some version of real world political motivations onto the story.
For instance, several of the Tradefederation weasels [Neimoidians] have names that evoke actual politicians of the day.
Senator Lott Dod.
Obviously refers to (Senators) Trent Lott, & Chris Dodd,
Viceroy Nute Gunray.
Former GOP whip Newt Gingrich, and of course President Ronald 'Ray Gun' (O.K. not exactly of the day)
I'm not trying to be political here, just pointing out an obvious fact.
If GL is going to make this adult nod to real world politics himself then at some point the discussion has to rise above
being mere 'kiddie movie' to at least the self-aware-ness typical of a Bugs Bunny cartoon,
which are un-arguably better crafted than your average Cartoon Network fare,
or any of the prequels for that matter.
I'm kinda not buying the 'it's a kids movie' defense anymore. I've used it myself but today I'd like to point out
that a lot of people have shoveled some version of real world political motivations onto the story.
For instance, several of the Tradefederation weasels [Neimoidians] have names that evoke actual politicians of the day.
Senator Lott Dod.
Obviously refers to (Senators) Trent Lott, & Chris Dodd,
Viceroy Nute Gunray.
Former GOP whip Newt Gingrich, and of course President Ronald 'Ray Gun' (O.K. not exactly of the day)
I'm not trying to be political here, just pointing out an obvious fact.
If GL is going to make this adult nod to real world politics himself then at some point the discussion has to rise above
being mere 'kiddie movie' to at least the self-aware-ness typical of a Bugs Bunny cartoon,
which are un-arguably better crafted than your average Cartoon Network fare,
or any of the prequels for that matter.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Being a kids movie isn't the issue here. I've seen kids movies that are more mature and way more clever than anything Lucas has done in the prequels. Heck, I've seen more adult oriented films that feature characters far more annoying than Jar Jar (Pacific Rim's Dr. Newton Geiszler in my case). Simply saying that you're just making a kid's movie is not a good reason to do a lackluster job at it. Michael Bay thought that the twins from the second Transformers movie was done strictly for kids, as if to say that's the reason they're stupid and morbidly offensive. While I certainly don't find Jar Jar's character that offensive, his humor comes off being there for the sake of it, and some of his antics actually does more harm than good to his character.
That's not to say that even "Star Wars Style" humor itself doesn't work. C-3PO for example is a comic relief character who even in the original trilogy I cannot tolerate. He's always complaining, not being useful and even turns what could have been a useful moment for him into more comic relief just for the sake of it (He's totally alright with his friends being burned alive? What the heck?). Now take a character like HK-47, an droid who like C-3PO complains a lot but only does so because he wants to fulfill his primary function... killing people. If you play your character as a cold hearted killer, he expresses delight doing what he was built for. But if you try to work your way out of fighting in certain situations, he'll express his disappointment in you for not using his abilities to it's fullest. Sure, he'll translate what the sand people are saying, but he'll always follow up with "Can we destroy him now master?". His stories regarding the history of his former owners is still one of the funniest bits of Star Wars comedy in the whole franchise. Certainly more than rescuing Jabba's son and C-3PO's "This is such a drag" antics.
Being a kids movie isn't the issue here. I've seen kids movies that are more mature and way more clever than anything Lucas has done in the prequels. Heck, I've seen more adult oriented films that feature characters far more annoying than Jar Jar (Pacific Rim's Dr. Newton Geiszler in my case). Simply saying that you're just making a kid's movie is not a good reason to do a lackluster job at it. Michael Bay thought that the twins from the second Transformers movie was done strictly for kids, as if to say that's the reason they're stupid and morbidly offensive. While I certainly don't find Jar Jar's character that offensive, his humor comes off being there for the sake of it, and some of his antics actually does more harm than good to his character.
That's not to say that even "Star Wars Style" humor itself doesn't work. C-3PO for example is a comic relief character who even in the original trilogy I cannot tolerate. He's always complaining, not being useful and even turns what could have been a useful moment for him into more comic relief just for the sake of it (He's totally alright with his friends being burned alive? What the heck?). Now take a character like HK-47, an droid who like C-3PO complains a lot but only does so because he wants to fulfill his primary function... killing people. If you play your character as a cold hearted killer, he expresses delight doing what he was built for. But if you try to work your way out of fighting in certain situations, he'll express his disappointment in you for not using his abilities to it's fullest. Sure, he'll translate what the sand people are saying, but he'll always follow up with "Can we destroy him now master?". His stories regarding the history of his former owners is still one of the funniest bits of Star Wars comedy in the whole franchise. Certainly more than rescuing Jabba's son and C-3PO's "This is such a drag" antics.
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Really - because this 'kid' saw it as a kid, loved it as a kid and got a bunch of the toys as a kid. Perhaps you were brain dead, I know I wasn't.
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Star Wars is for kids, not nostalgia addicts ? Telegraph Blogs
Well said - but I'm sure we'll read more "adults" right heard in this thread who just don't get it.
Star Wars is for kids, not nostalgia addicts ? Telegraph Blogs
Well said - but I'm sure we'll read more "adults" right heard in this thread who just don't get it.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I think it depends heavily on what one means by a "kids movie."
You could mean a movie that is imbued with plenty of stuff that kids love, like adventure, relative simplicity in the storyline, and stuff that's fantastical, all without being particularly dark, violent, overly sexualized, etc. In other words, without stuff that would make it inappropriate for kids, and appropriate only for adults or at least teenagers. Examples: Raiders of the Lost Ark, much of Doctor Who, Iron Man, The Princess Bride, Harry Potter, etc.
Or you could mean a movie that targets kids by putting in stuff that is primarily oriented towards them with varying degrees of entertainment that adults can appreciate. Examples: most Pixar films, some of the 90s Disney animated films, older Disney films like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Bedknobs & Broomsticks.
Or you could mean a movie that ONLY kids can appreciate, where adults are basically just there to make sure nobody gets abducted or into a fight. Examples: Dora the Explorer, most 80s cartoons like G.I. Joe, M.A.S.K., and Transformers, Air Bud, etc.
I think the first two films of the OT and ROTS fall more into the first category (actually, I might even say that ROTS isn't all that appropriate for kids, given how dark it goes at the end). I think ROTJ and AOTC sort of straddle the line between the first and second category, and TPM straddles the line between the 2nd and 3rd category.
I think that the labels of "kid-friendly" or "family" entertainment were used far more with respect to categories 2 and 3, and I distinguish between a film that it's appropriate to take kids to, but isn't targeted explicitly at them, and films which are targeted at kids and/or only appreciable by kids. The latter, I'd consider "kids films." The former is something that kids can enjoy, but isn't only for kids. I think, however, that a LOT of films that fall into the first category end up also having coinciding merchandising campaigns which ARE targeted directly at kids, and Star Wars was absolutely the first film to really heavily do this. But then, so does Iron Man and the Avengers, and I don't think anyone would call those "kids" films, per se, just because there's a toy campaign associated with it.
In the end, though, I don't think it necessarily matters who the film is targeted at, as long as it's well executed. I don't think ROTS is targeted at kids at all, but I also think it's not particularly well done. Likewise, I've seen plenty of entertainment that's directly targeted at kids which I thoroughly enjoyed. I got a huge kick out of Cars and Cars 2, and while I wouldn't necessarily watch them on my own, I'm certainly happy to watch them with my nephew and enjoy the films in their own right in addition to enjoying my nephew's enjoyment of them. So, merely because something is a kids film doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing.
I think fans of Star Wars, though, are all over the map in terms of how they approach it, and when in their lives they enjoyed it. Plus, the franchise is SO sprawling that it's difficult to say whether it's more or less appropriate to claim it's for kids only or if it's just something that kids and adults can access alike.
When people talk about what they want in the next films, though, and say they don't want "kiddie films, like TPM", what I really hear is "I want a film that's entertaining and that doesn't have elements that ONLY a kid would really appreciate." And I'm with 'em on that. I don't care, for example, that Rebels seems to be targeted at kids. I DO care that it be accessible to more than JUST, kids, though. And I dispute that Star Wars is ONLY for kids, as a franchise. Certainly the franchise has done its level best to target all aspects of the available market, regardless of age. I don't know too many 5-year-olds who are playing The Force Unleashed, or buying the zombie-style Troopers book, ya know?
I think it depends heavily on what one means by a "kids movie."
You could mean a movie that is imbued with plenty of stuff that kids love, like adventure, relative simplicity in the storyline, and stuff that's fantastical, all without being particularly dark, violent, overly sexualized, etc. In other words, without stuff that would make it inappropriate for kids, and appropriate only for adults or at least teenagers. Examples: Raiders of the Lost Ark, much of Doctor Who, Iron Man, The Princess Bride, Harry Potter, etc.
Or you could mean a movie that targets kids by putting in stuff that is primarily oriented towards them with varying degrees of entertainment that adults can appreciate. Examples: most Pixar films, some of the 90s Disney animated films, older Disney films like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Bedknobs & Broomsticks.
Or you could mean a movie that ONLY kids can appreciate, where adults are basically just there to make sure nobody gets abducted or into a fight. Examples: Dora the Explorer, most 80s cartoons like G.I. Joe, M.A.S.K., and Transformers, Air Bud, etc.
I think the first two films of the OT and ROTS fall more into the first category (actually, I might even say that ROTS isn't all that appropriate for kids, given how dark it goes at the end). I think ROTJ and AOTC sort of straddle the line between the first and second category, and TPM straddles the line between the 2nd and 3rd category.
I think that the labels of "kid-friendly" or "family" entertainment were used far more with respect to categories 2 and 3, and I distinguish between a film that it's appropriate to take kids to, but isn't targeted explicitly at them, and films which are targeted at kids and/or only appreciable by kids. The latter, I'd consider "kids films." The former is something that kids can enjoy, but isn't only for kids. I think, however, that a LOT of films that fall into the first category end up also having coinciding merchandising campaigns which ARE targeted directly at kids, and Star Wars was absolutely the first film to really heavily do this. But then, so does Iron Man and the Avengers, and I don't think anyone would call those "kids" films, per se, just because there's a toy campaign associated with it.
In the end, though, I don't think it necessarily matters who the film is targeted at, as long as it's well executed. I don't think ROTS is targeted at kids at all, but I also think it's not particularly well done. Likewise, I've seen plenty of entertainment that's directly targeted at kids which I thoroughly enjoyed. I got a huge kick out of Cars and Cars 2, and while I wouldn't necessarily watch them on my own, I'm certainly happy to watch them with my nephew and enjoy the films in their own right in addition to enjoying my nephew's enjoyment of them. So, merely because something is a kids film doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing.
I think fans of Star Wars, though, are all over the map in terms of how they approach it, and when in their lives they enjoyed it. Plus, the franchise is SO sprawling that it's difficult to say whether it's more or less appropriate to claim it's for kids only or if it's just something that kids and adults can access alike.
When people talk about what they want in the next films, though, and say they don't want "kiddie films, like TPM", what I really hear is "I want a film that's entertaining and that doesn't have elements that ONLY a kid would really appreciate." And I'm with 'em on that. I don't care, for example, that Rebels seems to be targeted at kids. I DO care that it be accessible to more than JUST, kids, though. And I dispute that Star Wars is ONLY for kids, as a franchise. Certainly the franchise has done its level best to target all aspects of the available market, regardless of age. I don't know too many 5-year-olds who are playing The Force Unleashed, or buying the zombie-style Troopers book, ya know?
cboath
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I think IV and V are movies that kids can enjoy. I don't think that makes them kids movies. To me, a kids movie is one where you start your production with a target age range of like 6-12 years old.
I think it started turning towards kids movie with VI, and then went there with I and some of II and returned to the original range with III.
I think IV and V are movies that kids can enjoy. I don't think that makes them kids movies. To me, a kids movie is one where you start your production with a target age range of like 6-12 years old.
I think it started turning towards kids movie with VI, and then went there with I and some of II and returned to the original range with III.
RougeAvenger81
Well-Known Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Just because the OS was PG and Lucas tried to continue to keep them that way doesn't mean they are kids movies. Remember, they didn't enact the PG-13 rating until after all 3 films were made. Lucas himself agreed that had they had PG-13 rating when ESB was made that it would have (due to the times) been rated PG-13. I don't think this makes them kids films. He simply tried to cater to a very wide audience base to keep old fans happy yet bring in a new era of fans. IMO that back fired. Rarely can you appease ages 5-40 unless it is through and though a kids film that parents see with them that was done well enough to keep parents entertained as well. But not making them fans just enjoying it for the kids.
Just because the OS was PG and Lucas tried to continue to keep them that way doesn't mean they are kids movies. Remember, they didn't enact the PG-13 rating until after all 3 films were made. Lucas himself agreed that had they had PG-13 rating when ESB was made that it would have (due to the times) been rated PG-13. I don't think this makes them kids films. He simply tried to cater to a very wide audience base to keep old fans happy yet bring in a new era of fans. IMO that back fired. Rarely can you appease ages 5-40 unless it is through and though a kids film that parents see with them that was done well enough to keep parents entertained as well. But not making them fans just enjoying it for the kids.
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Don't kid yourselves (pun not intended?).
"The original film was designed to allow young people to think outside the box. It was designed for 12-year-olds, adolescents, kids who were starting to think outside the box anyway, as a way of saying, "Let your fantasies run free, because this is the time to do it." That was one of the original purposes of "Star Wars."" - GL
He also said " You can put in a motif of Saturday-afternoon serials to make it relevant to kids of today..." while a general statement, I think it has implications.
"There was no modern mythology to give kids a sense of values, to give them a strong mythological fantasy life." - GL on SW; Doesn't directly state SW is a kids movie, but it doesn't take much to connect the dots.
From Lucas' Bio on Bio.com (not quite an official source, but many would consider it close): "...he set out to make a children's Saturday morning serial that would be part fairy tale, part Flash Gordon, and complete fantasy and adventure set in the imaginary frontier of outer space."
I couldn't find anything to indicate Lucas said ESB would've been PG-13, not that I'm doubting you. But, based on the first two prequels being PG (AotC especially), I don't think ESB would've been. That's a whole other topic for discussion... it is very possible at some point, ESB would've been PG-13 - but, based on more recent standards - I'm not seeing it. (Admittedly, there are many pre-1984 movies that should be PG-13 - but, again... that's a whole other topic).
Take it how you want. I reckon the masses and Lucas consider Star Wars kids' movies - that's good enough for me. It doesn't mean it can't and doesn't appeal to more than just that.
I again, refer to a link and quote in my post a bit up the page. "Adults harping on about Star Wars today are as annoying as people who constantly herald the spirit of punk, upset that the touchstones of their youth aren’t the same any more." Amen - nothing wrong with discussing and having fun with it all, but this "harping on" and silliness that accompanies it just get's a bit much at times. We all know what Shatner had to say about it all...
Don't kid yourselves (pun not intended?).
"The original film was designed to allow young people to think outside the box. It was designed for 12-year-olds, adolescents, kids who were starting to think outside the box anyway, as a way of saying, "Let your fantasies run free, because this is the time to do it." That was one of the original purposes of "Star Wars."" - GL
He also said " You can put in a motif of Saturday-afternoon serials to make it relevant to kids of today..." while a general statement, I think it has implications.
"There was no modern mythology to give kids a sense of values, to give them a strong mythological fantasy life." - GL on SW; Doesn't directly state SW is a kids movie, but it doesn't take much to connect the dots.
From Lucas' Bio on Bio.com (not quite an official source, but many would consider it close): "...he set out to make a children's Saturday morning serial that would be part fairy tale, part Flash Gordon, and complete fantasy and adventure set in the imaginary frontier of outer space."
I couldn't find anything to indicate Lucas said ESB would've been PG-13, not that I'm doubting you. But, based on the first two prequels being PG (AotC especially), I don't think ESB would've been. That's a whole other topic for discussion... it is very possible at some point, ESB would've been PG-13 - but, based on more recent standards - I'm not seeing it. (Admittedly, there are many pre-1984 movies that should be PG-13 - but, again... that's a whole other topic).
Take it how you want. I reckon the masses and Lucas consider Star Wars kids' movies - that's good enough for me. It doesn't mean it can't and doesn't appeal to more than just that.
I again, refer to a link and quote in my post a bit up the page. "Adults harping on about Star Wars today are as annoying as people who constantly herald the spirit of punk, upset that the touchstones of their youth aren’t the same any more." Amen - nothing wrong with discussing and having fun with it all, but this "harping on" and silliness that accompanies it just get's a bit much at times. We all know what Shatner had to say about it all...
Last edited:
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Yeah, no doubt GL intended SW to be a space fantasy/Buck Rogers for a new generation but
20th Century Fox had a more inclusive marketing plan in a bid to recoup their money. The broad based appeal if the films makes it difficult to shoe horn them into a single category. I would say the same applies to
the PT, it's hard to suggest films as dense in political drama as the PT are films aimed at kids.
Yeah, no doubt GL intended SW to be a space fantasy/Buck Rogers for a new generation but
20th Century Fox had a more inclusive marketing plan in a bid to recoup their money. The broad based appeal if the films makes it difficult to shoe horn them into a single category. I would say the same applies to
the PT, it's hard to suggest films as dense in political drama as the PT are films aimed at kids.
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Actually, there was a quote I saw from GL that specifically referenced the political bits and a "kid movie." I think that's part of the "Jar Jar factor;" I do think kids are mature enough to understand enough of the political stuff, but it's the Jar Jar stuff that gives some balance to it. I think many - myself included (for the most part), think the Jar Jar stuff (more specifically in Ep 1) may've gone a bit too far.
Last edited:
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Even if those spirited punk folk didn't like where the trend went, at least they can still chill back and listen to the music the way it was recorded back in the day. Fans of the original Star Wars movies? They don't have much luxury in going back and watching the films they saw during their child hood because, and I know this is kind of difficult to understand, Lucas CHANGED THEM. "You'll always have the originals to fall back on" no longer applies if the original films that fans grew up with are specifically altered to fit the new trend that they don't like. And when you leave the fans no choice in the matter, well, you shouldn't be surprised if they wind up getting upset.
Even if those spirited punk folk didn't like where the trend went, at least they can still chill back and listen to the music the way it was recorded back in the day. Fans of the original Star Wars movies? They don't have much luxury in going back and watching the films they saw during their child hood because, and I know this is kind of difficult to understand, Lucas CHANGED THEM. "You'll always have the originals to fall back on" no longer applies if the original films that fans grew up with are specifically altered to fit the new trend that they don't like. And when you leave the fans no choice in the matter, well, you shouldn't be surprised if they wind up getting upset.
Similar threads
