Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Warpaint
- Start date
RougeAvenger81
Well-Known Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I'm ok with one person's vision, because a lot of great films have been derived from one's imagination and vision of a story. The problem you have is a person like GL who became larger then life within that corporation to the point no one could tell him no or that his plan/idea may not be the greatest. Fear becomes a huge part within that dictatorship. Not wanting to upset the man with the power.
I'm ok with one person's vision, because a lot of great films have been derived from one's imagination and vision of a story. The problem you have is a person like GL who became larger then life within that corporation to the point no one could tell him no or that his plan/idea may not be the greatest. Fear becomes a huge part within that dictatorship. Not wanting to upset the man with the power.
Metaluna mutant
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
"Lucas was seduced by the Dark Side of Hollywood. He ceased to be the visionary director of THX-1138 and became George Lucas, CEO of Lucasfilm Ltd. When that happened, the good man who created American Graffiti was destroyed. He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
But seriously, I think the major problem with the prequels is Anakin. Without a great, charismatic actor to play such a pivotal role, it just falls apart. Lucas should have stayed with his original plan (Anakin found at age 17, like Luke) and spent more time looking for a better, older actor. Casting Jake Lloyd was problem #1 (too young, and, honestly, terrible in TPM) and Hayden Christian was also pretty mediocre. Neither had a sense of charisma, nor a riveting on screen personality or an electric acting style.
I did notice in ROTS that many dramatic lines were voiced to Frank Oz, Ewan Mcgregor, Ian Mcdiarmad et al but few by Christiansen as, frankly, they were better actors than he. I also never felt Mcgregors OB1 and Hayden's Anakin meshed believably well in ROTS or AOTC as "like brothers". Also was a shame Christopher Lee had so little onscreen time, but frankly IMO he was too old to really physically play the part. I can't imagine how awesome Lee/Dooku would have been had it been played by Lee in his 1970s tall and imposing physical prime. He was also a very accomplish swordsman, and would have shone onscreen.
Good actors can overcome poor dialogue and direction -- look at ANH which had some very poor, awkward dialogue. But Hamill, Guiness et al made it believable. The chemistry of the actors definitely helped in the OT - Ford, Fisher and Hamill played well together and it showed onscreen. That made up for a lot of faults in ANH.
I'm hoping the chemistry of the actors cast for Ep 7 really gels well -- On screen chemistry and enthusiasm can overcome a lot of clunky dialogue.
"Lucas was seduced by the Dark Side of Hollywood. He ceased to be the visionary director of THX-1138 and became George Lucas, CEO of Lucasfilm Ltd. When that happened, the good man who created American Graffiti was destroyed. He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
But seriously, I think the major problem with the prequels is Anakin. Without a great, charismatic actor to play such a pivotal role, it just falls apart. Lucas should have stayed with his original plan (Anakin found at age 17, like Luke) and spent more time looking for a better, older actor. Casting Jake Lloyd was problem #1 (too young, and, honestly, terrible in TPM) and Hayden Christian was also pretty mediocre. Neither had a sense of charisma, nor a riveting on screen personality or an electric acting style.
I did notice in ROTS that many dramatic lines were voiced to Frank Oz, Ewan Mcgregor, Ian Mcdiarmad et al but few by Christiansen as, frankly, they were better actors than he. I also never felt Mcgregors OB1 and Hayden's Anakin meshed believably well in ROTS or AOTC as "like brothers". Also was a shame Christopher Lee had so little onscreen time, but frankly IMO he was too old to really physically play the part. I can't imagine how awesome Lee/Dooku would have been had it been played by Lee in his 1970s tall and imposing physical prime. He was also a very accomplish swordsman, and would have shone onscreen.
Good actors can overcome poor dialogue and direction -- look at ANH which had some very poor, awkward dialogue. But Hamill, Guiness et al made it believable. The chemistry of the actors definitely helped in the OT - Ford, Fisher and Hamill played well together and it showed onscreen. That made up for a lot of faults in ANH.
I'm hoping the chemistry of the actors cast for Ep 7 really gels well -- On screen chemistry and enthusiasm can overcome a lot of clunky dialogue.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Well, Kasdan had his hand in the writing so hopefully there will be no clunky dialogue whatsoever.
Well, Kasdan had his hand in the writing so hopefully there will be no clunky dialogue whatsoever.
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I love these blanket assumptions and statements that George was some evil dictator during the Prequels and people were afraid to say "no" to him. That the original movies weren't Lucas' vision and people were telling him no on those all the time.
There's also these assumptions that somehow people weren't working together or working at all during the Prequels. Just because there weren't the same "hardships" (for lack of a better term) during the making of these, doesn't mean people weren't working together any less than during the original films.
The Star Wars saga was George Lucas' vision... they were his creation. You can try to make excuses or try to rationalize why you didn't personally like them... but, the invention of these scenarios and assumptions is just silly.
I'm thankful that I grew up with the Original Trilogy. I'm thankful I can appreciate the Prequel Trilogy... are they the same? No. They can't be.
I love these blanket assumptions and statements that George was some evil dictator during the Prequels and people were afraid to say "no" to him. That the original movies weren't Lucas' vision and people were telling him no on those all the time.
There's also these assumptions that somehow people weren't working together or working at all during the Prequels. Just because there weren't the same "hardships" (for lack of a better term) during the making of these, doesn't mean people weren't working together any less than during the original films.
The Star Wars saga was George Lucas' vision... they were his creation. You can try to make excuses or try to rationalize why you didn't personally like them... but, the invention of these scenarios and assumptions is just silly.
I'm thankful that I grew up with the Original Trilogy. I'm thankful I can appreciate the Prequel Trilogy... are they the same? No. They can't be.
joshvanrad
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Must... hold... back.
Must... hold... back.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Westies14
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
It's not at all silly. George himself reinforces this stuff time and time again.
He doesn't have to be an evil dictator for people to be afraid to say no to him. He was practically a mythical figure by the time the prequels went into pre-production. Everyone in the industry wanted to be a part of the project, and it wouldn't feel right to many of the people involved to question George Lucas when it came to STAR WARS. If you watch the behind-the-scenes stuff from the prequels, you can see that dynamic in action plain as day. We're not just imagining it - Lucasfilm put it out there for us to see. Nervous model makers, sycophantic laughs from McCallum at unfunny jokes. No Lucas-tyrant - he seems very sweet - but no real conversations hashing these ideas out. CG enabled him even more to make exactly what he wanted to see on screen happen - he put all those actors he famously doesn't like writing for or working with in front of green screens and prescribed what would be painted in around them.
The hardships of the first couple films are very well documented at this point, as are Gary Kurtz' and Marcia Lucas' major contributions to the shape they ultimately took. GL was limited by technology, by funding, by time. If you've ever worked on even a small scale production you know how much responsibility needs to be shared by everyone involved. You're working against the clock, against a budget. George simply had the money and reputation the second time around that he didn't have on the first, which gave him the ability to steer the ship VERY independently. It's kind of ridiculous to chide us for discussing it when it's something George himself has celebrated publicly several times. If something wasn't just to his taste, he'd have someone click a few buttons and modify it until it was. The inability to do that was a source of tremendous stress for him on the original movies, and it was a huge relief to him to be able to take the reins in that way the second time around.
In the end, we've got someone who knows and admits he can't write scripting the most anticipated films of all time, then directing them himself while he doesn't like working with actors, and gleefully micromanaging the creation and fine-tuning of each shot as it's generated and composited in the computer. This is the same guy who's lamented his lack of control over each aspect of his past work - so much so that he felt a need to revisit them decades later and make them a little more like what he would have done if he could have had the same budget/technology/control at the time. We're not making this stuff up. It's on the record, and it's all over the films.
It's fine that people like the prequels for whatever reasons. Maybe they just like seeing lightsabers; perhaps their vision/taste is just perfectly in line with GL's. There seems to be less tolerance for people to discuss these films critically (not negatively) than other films though. Insisting that they're popcorn flicks or kids' movies doesn't cut it though - there are great examples of both. They represent objectively weak and inconsistent storytelling, whether some enjoy them or not.
For my part, I could enjoy them much more if they simply connected to the small handful of references we have in the films that came before them. They really didn't have many beats to hit and swung and missed just about all of them. Anakin was already a great pilot when Obi-Wan met him? Obi-Wan arrogantly decided to train him, thinking he could do it just as well as Yoda, who trained him? Leia remembers her beautiful, sad, real mother? Most importantly, where is Anakin as a "good friend?" He should have been a really great, charismatic guy, but the way he was portrayed he didn't have very far (nor good reason) to fall. You need to do some real mental acrobatics to explain any of these inconsistencies, and without that connection to the good films it becomes awfully easy to ignore these weak entries.
It's not at all silly. George himself reinforces this stuff time and time again.
He doesn't have to be an evil dictator for people to be afraid to say no to him. He was practically a mythical figure by the time the prequels went into pre-production. Everyone in the industry wanted to be a part of the project, and it wouldn't feel right to many of the people involved to question George Lucas when it came to STAR WARS. If you watch the behind-the-scenes stuff from the prequels, you can see that dynamic in action plain as day. We're not just imagining it - Lucasfilm put it out there for us to see. Nervous model makers, sycophantic laughs from McCallum at unfunny jokes. No Lucas-tyrant - he seems very sweet - but no real conversations hashing these ideas out. CG enabled him even more to make exactly what he wanted to see on screen happen - he put all those actors he famously doesn't like writing for or working with in front of green screens and prescribed what would be painted in around them.
The hardships of the first couple films are very well documented at this point, as are Gary Kurtz' and Marcia Lucas' major contributions to the shape they ultimately took. GL was limited by technology, by funding, by time. If you've ever worked on even a small scale production you know how much responsibility needs to be shared by everyone involved. You're working against the clock, against a budget. George simply had the money and reputation the second time around that he didn't have on the first, which gave him the ability to steer the ship VERY independently. It's kind of ridiculous to chide us for discussing it when it's something George himself has celebrated publicly several times. If something wasn't just to his taste, he'd have someone click a few buttons and modify it until it was. The inability to do that was a source of tremendous stress for him on the original movies, and it was a huge relief to him to be able to take the reins in that way the second time around.
In the end, we've got someone who knows and admits he can't write scripting the most anticipated films of all time, then directing them himself while he doesn't like working with actors, and gleefully micromanaging the creation and fine-tuning of each shot as it's generated and composited in the computer. This is the same guy who's lamented his lack of control over each aspect of his past work - so much so that he felt a need to revisit them decades later and make them a little more like what he would have done if he could have had the same budget/technology/control at the time. We're not making this stuff up. It's on the record, and it's all over the films.
It's fine that people like the prequels for whatever reasons. Maybe they just like seeing lightsabers; perhaps their vision/taste is just perfectly in line with GL's. There seems to be less tolerance for people to discuss these films critically (not negatively) than other films though. Insisting that they're popcorn flicks or kids' movies doesn't cut it though - there are great examples of both. They represent objectively weak and inconsistent storytelling, whether some enjoy them or not.
For my part, I could enjoy them much more if they simply connected to the small handful of references we have in the films that came before them. They really didn't have many beats to hit and swung and missed just about all of them. Anakin was already a great pilot when Obi-Wan met him? Obi-Wan arrogantly decided to train him, thinking he could do it just as well as Yoda, who trained him? Leia remembers her beautiful, sad, real mother? Most importantly, where is Anakin as a "good friend?" He should have been a really great, charismatic guy, but the way he was portrayed he didn't have very far (nor good reason) to fall. You need to do some real mental acrobatics to explain any of these inconsistencies, and without that connection to the good films it becomes awfully easy to ignore these weak entries.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
*begins slow clap*
*begins slow clap*
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Your entire post, while I'm sure many of the rest here will applaud it gleefully - it's because it reinforcing a popular opinion. In reality, it's just full of presumption and conjecture. You have an easy target, take aim... fire; way too easy.
No, not at all. In some opinions he's reinforcing "this stuff"... but, in others he's self effacing, relaxed and down-to-earth. There's very little I've read or seen from Lucas directly that reinforcing most of the baseless assumptions I read here. Can you twist or read into it? Sure, but those haven't shown to be Lucas' intention or words.
Again, these are assumptions and yes - they could be your imagination. "Nervous model makers," "sycophant laughs," "unfunny jokes" all presumptions and a matter of opinion.
Your entire post, while I'm sure many of the rest here will applaud it gleefully - it's because it reinforcing a popular opinion. In reality, it's just full of presumption and conjecture. You have an easy target, take aim... fire; way too easy.
Westies14
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I read all of the making-of stuff I can find (both sanctioned by Lucasfilm and unsanctioned, like the very well-researched "Secret History of Star Wars"). Like many people my age inside the industry and out, the movement that Lucas came up in is my golden era of filmmaking, and I also dig into what I can from other working with and around him. My favorite book of all time is "the Conversations," in which Walter Murch (who loves and respects George) describes GL's self-professed lack of writing ability. The stuff about hating working with actors, about his dissatisfaction with the original trilogy, about his excitement at the prospects of "fixing" the older movies, about his control over the prequels is all directly from the horse's mouth and is available practically anywhere George discusses the films. It's all out there from reliable sources, most notably the man himself. It didn't start on the RPF.
I'm not sure why you don't like that it went that way, but that doesn't change the way things are. If you like the prequels, isn't it okay to like them despite them having a very different production with much much much more input and control from Lucas? If you stand up for the guy's decisions, can't you let him own them as much as he does? And for those of us who don't like where he took the story, what's wrong with discussing the factors that might have led to that outcome? This stuff is part of the record. It's got nothing to do with whether or not you enjoy the films. GL had a lot more to do with the sum of the prequels than he did with every aspect of the OT. Man, you could get there just by watching the credits. Love 'em or hate 'em, what's wrong with the truth behind the movies?
I'll give you that Lucas' jokes were unfunny to me. Rick McCallum may legitimately think the man is hilarious. I guess?
I read all of the making-of stuff I can find (both sanctioned by Lucasfilm and unsanctioned, like the very well-researched "Secret History of Star Wars"). Like many people my age inside the industry and out, the movement that Lucas came up in is my golden era of filmmaking, and I also dig into what I can from other working with and around him. My favorite book of all time is "the Conversations," in which Walter Murch (who loves and respects George) describes GL's self-professed lack of writing ability. The stuff about hating working with actors, about his dissatisfaction with the original trilogy, about his excitement at the prospects of "fixing" the older movies, about his control over the prequels is all directly from the horse's mouth and is available practically anywhere George discusses the films. It's all out there from reliable sources, most notably the man himself. It didn't start on the RPF.
I'm not sure why you don't like that it went that way, but that doesn't change the way things are. If you like the prequels, isn't it okay to like them despite them having a very different production with much much much more input and control from Lucas? If you stand up for the guy's decisions, can't you let him own them as much as he does? And for those of us who don't like where he took the story, what's wrong with discussing the factors that might have led to that outcome? This stuff is part of the record. It's got nothing to do with whether or not you enjoy the films. GL had a lot more to do with the sum of the prequels than he did with every aspect of the OT. Man, you could get there just by watching the credits. Love 'em or hate 'em, what's wrong with the truth behind the movies?
I'll give you that Lucas' jokes were unfunny to me. Rick McCallum may legitimately think the man is hilarious. I guess?
Westies14
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I did also note that I don't see a Lucas-tyrant in this stuff, so saying that he's self-effacing and down to earth doesn't really negate anything. Heck, his self-effacing (and even self-deprecating) quotes are part of what I'm describing. I don't even think think there's anything wrong with him wanting to assert control over his own product. I'm simply acknowledging that it led to the prequels as they stand.
I did also note that I don't see a Lucas-tyrant in this stuff, so saying that he's self-effacing and down to earth doesn't really negate anything. Heck, his self-effacing (and even self-deprecating) quotes are part of what I'm describing. I don't even think think there's anything wrong with him wanting to assert control over his own product. I'm simply acknowledging that it led to the prequels as they stand.
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
@Ever & Oak - I think part of the this maybe a communication issue. I'm commenting based on this thread and its often strong attacks against Lucas, I think you're commenting on a smaller part of the issue, whereas I'm reading your replies as a blanket defense of these attacks.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on some of your points... but, overall blanket assumptions are just perverting the points. "Evil dictators" and employees not being people do not help someone's argument (not that these were your statements at all).
- - - Updated - - -
I would rather read actual news and comment about Episode VII than continue this constant and consistent war some folks have against the Prequel Trilogy and George Lucas.
@Ever & Oak - I think part of the this maybe a communication issue. I'm commenting based on this thread and its often strong attacks against Lucas, I think you're commenting on a smaller part of the issue, whereas I'm reading your replies as a blanket defense of these attacks.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on some of your points... but, overall blanket assumptions are just perverting the points. "Evil dictators" and employees not being people do not help someone's argument (not that these were your statements at all).
- - - Updated - - -
I would rather read actual news and comment about Episode VII than continue this constant and consistent war some folks have against the Prequel Trilogy and George Lucas.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
@Ever & Oak
I totally agree with your perspective. I've been a director of creatives for 20 years and I've seen all this first hand. Here are a couple of things I hold to be truths of design:
1: No design is perfect on the first pass. Every design benefits from iteration. In the OT we don't see RMQ's original designs on screen, we see iteration. So what is needed to have a culture where deigners get the opportunity to evolve a concept?
2: Candor. Without the ability to talk plainly you will not be given affordance to see and understand others perspectives. Without candor and a healthy creative environment where employees feel free to express themselves the only creative output will come from a myopic vision. All the best creative spaces embrace this model.
There are many more, but I think after watching the team dynamics at LFL during the prequels I think that frank conversation and the lack of iteration as a result were a part of the problem. CGI likely didn't help. From personal experience I can tell you that when a director asks for a change to a CGI model (especially a drastic "start over" request) the artist is far less likely to push back. It's too easy to make changes. If asked to start over on a physical model or stop motion sequence push back will happen just based on time and effort taken to get to that point in the design. This confrontation if handled well by the director can establish a really candid relationship and one where the artist is more likely to raise his voice more often and earlier the next time.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
@Ever & Oak
I totally agree with your perspective. I've been a director of creatives for 20 years and I've seen all this first hand. Here are a couple of things I hold to be truths of design:
1: No design is perfect on the first pass. Every design benefits from iteration. In the OT we don't see RMQ's original designs on screen, we see iteration. So what is needed to have a culture where deigners get the opportunity to evolve a concept?
2: Candor. Without the ability to talk plainly you will not be given affordance to see and understand others perspectives. Without candor and a healthy creative environment where employees feel free to express themselves the only creative output will come from a myopic vision. All the best creative spaces embrace this model.
There are many more, but I think after watching the team dynamics at LFL during the prequels I think that frank conversation and the lack of iteration as a result were a part of the problem. CGI likely didn't help. From personal experience I can tell you that when a director asks for a change to a CGI model (especially a drastic "start over" request) the artist is far less likely to push back. It's too easy to make changes. If asked to start over on a physical model or stop motion sequence push back will happen just based on time and effort taken to get to that point in the design. This confrontation if handled well by the director can establish a really candid relationship and one where the artist is more likely to raise his voice more often and earlier the next time.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator:
Westies14
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I get what you're saying - the hyperbole is extreme at times. For what it's worth, I'd have been just as starstruck and submissive as any of Lucas' prequel collaborators at the time if I'd been roped into episode I's production. I'll always love the guy for what he started. I'm sorry for my part in derailing the EpVII discussion, too. And to keep it on topic: boy, am I glad he's hands off this time around!
I get what you're saying - the hyperbole is extreme at times. For what it's worth, I'd have been just as starstruck and submissive as any of Lucas' prequel collaborators at the time if I'd been roped into episode I's production. I'll always love the guy for what he started. I'm sorry for my part in derailing the EpVII discussion, too. And to keep it on topic: boy, am I glad he's hands off this time around!
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
And I'll close with... Can't wait for episode vii. Lucas can't be vilified for bringing this whole universe to life and 35 years later we are still involved and passionate about it.
Best evidence IMO is that he donated the profits from the sale of LFL and SW rights from disney to California education. I think that makes it clear he cares hugely about the future of SW and that money wasn't his motivator.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And I'll close with... Can't wait for episode vii. Lucas can't be vilified for bringing this whole universe to life and 35 years later we are still involved and passionate about it.
Best evidence IMO is that he donated the profits from the sale of LFL and SW rights from disney to California education. I think that makes it clear he cares hugely about the future of SW and that money wasn't his motivator.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Westies14
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
The iterations were there on the prequels! The work just wasn't delegated so fully as it had to be the first time around. Lucas did bring in talented artists (I really love Iain McCaig's sketches) and we didn't see their initial designs on screen. The designs were refined in passes (in some instances, hundreds of times). I think that the iterations were just so specifically tweaked by GL as they went that you can more fairly call each one "his" vision. He felt entitled to that micromanagement at that stage in his career and in his story, to the detriment (in my opinion) of the end product. In the OT, he relayed his desire for a hamburger-shaped Millenium Falcon, but he didn't have the time, money, or technology to reshape and reshape and reshape that hamburger once he had it. He had to rely on that talent and taste of his artists and the details of the models they kitbashed to create it.
That's just one small example. He's kind of famously resentful of having to settle for things in the OT, from not being able to pack overwhelming detail into every frame (as McCallum boasted about for the prequels and as GL retroactively did with many scenes of the SE) to having pre-made monsters populate his Cantina set. He went back and "fixed" things to bring them more in line with what he would have made had he had more control, and it's an awful lot more like the prequels in its approach and execution. Any argument over GL's direct influence over each trilogy is a bit silly.
There were more people working on the prequels than the OT. Just as much work went into the films. There was just as much talent involved - perhaps more. But the final output, what's on screen, is objectively more GL's product than the original trilogy. Love it or hate it, it's fair to lay the blame or credit at his feet.
The iterations were there on the prequels! The work just wasn't delegated so fully as it had to be the first time around. Lucas did bring in talented artists (I really love Iain McCaig's sketches) and we didn't see their initial designs on screen. The designs were refined in passes (in some instances, hundreds of times). I think that the iterations were just so specifically tweaked by GL as they went that you can more fairly call each one "his" vision. He felt entitled to that micromanagement at that stage in his career and in his story, to the detriment (in my opinion) of the end product. In the OT, he relayed his desire for a hamburger-shaped Millenium Falcon, but he didn't have the time, money, or technology to reshape and reshape and reshape that hamburger once he had it. He had to rely on that talent and taste of his artists and the details of the models they kitbashed to create it.
That's just one small example. He's kind of famously resentful of having to settle for things in the OT, from not being able to pack overwhelming detail into every frame (as McCallum boasted about for the prequels and as GL retroactively did with many scenes of the SE) to having pre-made monsters populate his Cantina set. He went back and "fixed" things to bring them more in line with what he would have made had he had more control, and it's an awful lot more like the prequels in its approach and execution. Any argument over GL's direct influence over each trilogy is a bit silly.
There were more people working on the prequels than the OT. Just as much work went into the films. There was just as much talent involved - perhaps more. But the final output, what's on screen, is objectively more GL's product than the original trilogy. Love it or hate it, it's fair to lay the blame or credit at his feet.
glunark
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I can tell you the exact moment when I started to get a bad feeling about episode one, and it wasnt Jar Jar, racist aliens, or even over eager child Anakin.
There was an old guy with a white beard, talking to other old guys with beards on the steps about the embargo and the trade ramifications, and whether or not the senate would do something about it, and I just felt completely bored, and I literally thought to myself, this is not star wars, this is accountancy.
Frankly at that moment even the comedy clumsy robots would have been welcome if at least they were firing their guns.
I came to see star wars, not star politics.
I can tell you the exact moment when I started to get a bad feeling about episode one, and it wasnt Jar Jar, racist aliens, or even over eager child Anakin.
There was an old guy with a white beard, talking to other old guys with beards on the steps about the embargo and the trade ramifications, and whether or not the senate would do something about it, and I just felt completely bored, and I literally thought to myself, this is not star wars, this is accountancy.
Frankly at that moment even the comedy clumsy robots would have been welcome if at least they were firing their guns.
I came to see star wars, not star politics.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Over time the PT has gone from blasphemy to some form of acceptance. I think everyone went through the grieving process and are semi-okay living with it, some defending it pretty well, too!
What we do know though is the OT was an immediate love. The PT was an acquired taste (with exception of ROTS for me which I felt was a pretty strong chapter). I don't bash on them as much as I used to when I was bent on parts of those movies. There's still parts that irk, but not bad.
My biggest beef as of late has been what they altered in the Blu-Ray releases, namely ROTJ's addition of a yelling Vader, "No..... NOO!!!!!"
Over time the PT has gone from blasphemy to some form of acceptance. I think everyone went through the grieving process and are semi-okay living with it, some defending it pretty well, too!
What we do know though is the OT was an immediate love. The PT was an acquired taste (with exception of ROTS for me which I felt was a pretty strong chapter). I don't bash on them as much as I used to when I was bent on parts of those movies. There's still parts that irk, but not bad.
My biggest beef as of late has been what they altered in the Blu-Ray releases, namely ROTJ's addition of a yelling Vader, "No..... NOO!!!!!"
Similar threads
