What If Star Wars?

[Colin Droidmilk]

I'm with you Colin.
I like a bit of off topic derision in a thread. It's funny.But I don't like going over theat old chestnut of what's objective and what's subjective.

Mic is right and Sean is right, from a certain point of view.
All I know is that I'm going to learn a lot more about my interests, if I let Sean expound how and why he's come to his POV.

Glad to have you, man. Just to be absolutely clear, I wasn't defending off-topic derision in a thread, rather I was defending us whiners who apparently whine too much about the unprecedentedly vast tide of sludge engulfing us from all sides. I was defending the right of all to 'whine' about art they feel is garbage, or, as I see it, to stand up for QUALITY in a world that seems quite happy to flush that particular commodity down the toilet. And I was (ee, I'm getting all warmed up again now!) praising those who can do this and give us some hearty laughs too at the expense of Hollywood or whoever's perpetrated the particular slice of turd that is being derided. What seems to p*** some people off more than bad movies is we who moan about the bad movies, and while their whines about us can be very amusing at times, their whining is aimed not at some unfeeling target like a movie, or a boardroom full of suits, but at individual members here, which can come over as being rude/curt/abrasive at times.

And you're right about the tedious old objective/subjective chestnut. What the hell's the point of a movie discussion forum where nothing can be posted that could lead to a collision in matters of taste? That to me sounds like rabid PC BS.

If you think the PT designs are crap, post it. I myself am in two minds about much of the design for the PT. To hear from someone who thinks it's outright crap is interesting to me. May not be to Mic, but it is to me. For me, the design in TPM was refreshing and interesting and the best thing about the film, but by the time we got to ROTS, the patina had faded; it all began to look like a lot of awkward, over-designed clutter. One thing I did love in ROTS, though, was the fire appliance ships tending to the crashing ship what D2, Cloudwalker and Benobi were in. I would've happily exchanged the entire first-reel encounter with Grebo and Duckoo for a ten-minute sequence showing those fireships taking off and going about more of their fire-extinguishing activities. Yeah, a whole Towering Inferno movie about a gargantuan, burning, crashing spaceship with all these fireships and other rescue ships taking people off and stuff...with Steve McQueen driving one of the fireships... I spent much of the rest of ROTS dreaming of that film...

 

[nicklambo]

Ok, I’ll give this try.


Even though this is in a distant Galaxy, in a different time, the characters, for the most part, are predominately human, or humanoid, they are dependent on the same things we are, atmosphere, gravity, things like that, so already, there's an inherent, intuitive sense of fundamental rules that have to be followed to be convincing and believable.


There has to be some sense of familiarity with our reality so we can subconsciously identify with it.
Without a grounding base that follows the fundamental laws of nature, the act of suspending disbelief cant be accomplished as successfully without an anchor in our own reality. There has to be rules so that they can be broken, without them, there's no need to suspend disbelief, because there's no underlying believability in the first place.


Form follows function, the OT followed this criteria to perfection, while the PT sacrifices function, form for the sake of form, it became lost in it's own self-indulgence. Physics and reality became frivolous, the artistic took precedence over the realistic.


There's several factors that have to work individually and in unison for the over-all look and design to be successful and believable, such as shape, proportion, contrast, functionality, the subtle and the dominant, detail, symmetry, asymmetry, variation and theme, etc.


So this post doesn’t become too long-winded, I'll show one example and see where it goes from there.


This first one mainly deals with shape, proportion, contrast, functionality variation and theme.

The Biker Scout and his Speeder Bike.
Even though we've never seen a Speeder Bike before, we can take a pretty accurate guess as to what it is, just based on its shape alone.


The angles and lines, the balance, physics, symmetry, the functionality, the position where the rider sits, the thin, extended length up-front, that adds balance and compensates for the bulk ,weight and mass in the back without adding considerable weight itself, the fins upfront that add stability, so it remains agile at fast speeds, like a Dragster without wheels.
The weathered, assembly line, utilitarian look that the OT is famous for, that adds the imperative grounding anchor and believability, all of these aspects successfully employed in this iconic design. All aspects are working in and of themselves and in accord with one another.


We don't question how the Speeder Bike works, because it just looks like it should work, so instead of our sense of disbelief lagging behind, off we go, along for the ride at a 110 mph through the forest of Endor, not giving the believability and functionality of the machine a second thought.


Now if we exam the “speeder bikes” that Dooku and Maul rode and to makes things a lot faster and easier, the PT “speeder bikes” are completely void of every single positive and successful thing that I just listed and described about the OT Speeder Bike, absolutely everything.


IMO, the main flaws with the PT bikes are proportion, shape and functionality.


Maul looks like he's riding some weird marital aid, or an abstract, Art Nouveau recliner with handle bars, that would look awesome sitting in the corner of his studio loft, right next to his IKEA bookshelf.

Dooku's proportions are so far off, the evil and menace of his character gives way to the utterly ridiculous. He looks like one of those funny old Shriners, zooming around like silly clowns in their tiny little cars and motorcycles.
All Dooku is missing is a fez and you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

I think this is spot on...perfect example of what is wrong with the designs...

 

[blip]

......

 

[Larry Young]

What seems to p*** some people off more than bad movies is we who moan about the bad movies, and while their whines about us can be very amusing at times, their whining is aimed not at some unfeeling target like a movie, or a boardroom full of suits, but at individual members here, which can come over as being rude/curt/abrasive at times.

This is where I part company with folks here who may not prefer something and "whiners." Whilst you may think your belly-aching is aimed at an "unfeeling target like a movie," you are mistaken. As a producer of copyrighted entertainment for purchase and enjoyment, I understand that entertainment is not "an unfeeling target" but rather the hopes and hard work of many people.

So, yes. I think a place like the RPF should be above the same sort of pissing and moaning you get on TMZ or WWTDD because at least enthusiasts here should have an inkling of what's involved. No one goes to work on something like PLUTO NASH and thinks, "I can't wait to half-ass it today."

People are trying to entertain us, and we should celebrate that, even if we think they miss the mark. That's why I think whiners are jackwagons. Because they don't admit that upfront. They just whine.

 

[SeanB13]

First a question, why is it that an object, say a desk owned by Napoleon is much more desirable than an exact copy, made by the same manufacturer, at the same time, from the same materials?

What is it that people are paying 100's of times the price for?

That's a good question.
Its rarity?

 

[blip]

......

 

[SeanB13]

That's part of it. The main reason an object owned buy Napoleon has such great value is that it somehow connects you with histroy and the greatness of the man. When you sit at a desk owned by Napoleon, it's as if time melts away and a wisper of the man himself is somehow in the room with you. It's a strange effect.

Linking this back to the topic:
In the O.T., when Luke is dodging the club of a Tusken Raider, he is in fact dodging a real weapon, a war club from a South Pacific Island, which may have caved in a mans skull ( in the past ).
When Carrie Fisher is letting loose with a Stormtrooper Pistol, she's dumping blank rounds from a real weapon, a Sterling Machine Gun. It too may have seen action.

Could it be that somehow, by using real weapons of war, the fantasy is locked into our reality? Even if it's only seen in the performance of the actors and stunt people?

It's abstract like I said. Who knows.

I've heard Geroge Lucas use the word "visceral", is that the effect we see? Whatever, you can never say the weapons look fake, because they simply aren't.

Ok, I see where you're going with this.
I totally agree and I don't think it's abstract at all.

Like Napoleon's desk, the look of the Empire, is not just famous, but infamous and this conjures up underlying, real-world feelings in the audience.

The overt use of Nazi-esque characteristics, the field gray uniforms and riding boots, the indifferent, skull-faced, SS skeletons, with the strongest contrast possible, black and white, there's no gradation, there's nothing in-between, there's no room for compromise or, negotiation with these soldiers, now, if they could just work on their aim.

They also successfully employ variation and theme with the different types of Stormtroopers, the Tie pilot, Biker Scout, Snowtrooper, etc., which gives the impression of organization, structure and the lack of individuality, void of independent thought, all with a singular purpose.

The same tactic is used for Vader, with his Nazi/Samurai helmet, his unblinking, permanent scowl, covered head to toe in all black and leather with his flowing Dracula cape, his contrast is pushed to the furthest extreme.
Unlike C-3PO, there's no ambiguity in his face or, expression, his proportions, variation and theme, symmetry, contrast and shape, again all used to perfection.


They don't even need to do anything "evil", just their appearance alone is enough invoke that "strange effect" that you mentioned, the audience, who inadvertently project their preconceived notions and emotions onto these characters.


None of this is by accident and none of this is as successfully, perfectly employed in the PT, as it is in the OT.


Sorry, that's not whining or, hating, that's just stating a fact.

 

[blip]

......

 

[SeanB13]

Yes, the thing is, I'm not sure that even George Lucas knows how he did it.

Maybe, I don't know, but he sure didn't do all alone though, because if he did, it would have been the PT.

Another thing that may have contributed to the real-ness of Star Wars (1977) was the history of the crew.

What do you mean?

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

This is where I part company with folks here who may not prefer something and "whiners." Whilst you may think your belly-aching is aimed at an "unfeeling target like a movie," you are mistaken. As a producer of copyrighted entertainment for purchase and enjoyment, I understand that entertainment is not "an unfeeling target" but rather the hopes and hard work of many people.

So, yes. I think a place like the RPF should be above the same sort of pissing and moaning you get on TMZ or WWTDD because at least enthusiasts here should have an inkling of what's involved. No one goes to work on something like PLUTO NASH and thinks, "I can't wait to half-ass it today."

People are trying to entertain us, and we should celebrate that, even if we think they miss the mark. That's why I think whiners are jackwagons. Because they don't admit that upfront. They just whine.

Sorry, but this looks like you're perhaps projecting a sensitivity toward criticism of your own work onto the rest of the industry...

Look, no one likes criticism. I'm an artist, too, and I hate it. But the fact is if we set ourselves up to entertain, enlighten, whatever, we have to take the knocks when we fail. People who've paid hard-earned dough for our stuff have every right to shout from the rooftops that it's garbage if they so feel.


When entertainment fails, it needs pointing out. If the producers of the work in question are humble in their failure, we can be gentle; when they're arrogant, complacent and heedless, as is so often the case with modern H'wood, then we need to take the gloves off.


Yes, people are trying to entertain. OK, but all too often, people are also knowingly trying to pass garbage off as entertainment. People are also imagining they're the best thing since sliced bread when they're not (eg.Cameron). Also, the idea that no critical analysis should be made of a film's quality because the people who made it were trying to entertain and should somehow be simply thanked instead is ridiculous. This idea that products should never be criticized for fear of hurting the feelings of the poor loves who made them is yet more rabid PC BS, as far as I can make out. If the poor dears can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. I can't believe you're crying tears for poor little Cameron or poor little George every time anyone here points out their failures. But maybe you're thinking of the guy behind the pc doing the naff cgi. What about his feelings? Well, what about them? He should dry his eyes, he's in a good job, and half the world thinks he's great anyway. But if he can't take it, if he requires universal praise, then he should go into another line of business. The world of the arts has always been rough. Look at the invective, the feuds, the insults hurled not just at but between artists of great rank down the centuries. It's a knockabout world, the arts, always has been. But at the centre of all this rough-housing, at its heart... is a passion for seeing that QUALITY is MAINTAINED, and as such it stems from a deep, protective care for our culture.

 

[blip]

......

 

[micdavis]

Don't worry shadowX81, if you look back through micdavis's posts, you will see he pulls out the same old tired tricks to try and bully new members.
Sad sad sad.
He still owes me an apology from when he tried his usual worn out "sockpuppet" slurr on me.
Still waiting for that apology by the way mic.
Lucky I don't charge interest, or you would owe me two aplogies by now.


Also I'd just like to apologise to Sean and Shadow for the ignorant behaviour of Mic and Larry. Please just try and hang in there with your interesting thoughts and comments. Many of us on this forum do want to learn and discuss, rather than blow and bluster.

Please show me where I called you a sockpuppet. Or shut the hell up.

And do not presume to speak for any one here let alone myself or Larry.

 

[blip]

......

 

[Larry Young]

Sorry, but this looks like you're perhaps projecting a sensitivity toward criticism of your own work onto the rest of the industry...

Look, no one likes criticism. I'm an artist, too, and I hate it.

Nothing to be sorry about; I'm sure that's it exactly. Not so much my stuff by itself, but all comics criticism. I come here for fun, so to see the same sorts of things being said about film that I have to read about comics for work sometimes wears on me late at night, lumpen flesh though I am. Carry on.

 

[blip]

......

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

Hey guys,

such a harmless thread topic, and this much stuff flying around. Not really cool, actually pretty sad.

Please get a grip on your personal feelings towards the various Star Wars episode (I personally kinda feel a bit burned out regarding SW lately) and towards each other. I can´t remember if a SW discussion ever got locked in the past, and I think we don´t need a precedence here.

EDIT: HUGE thread deletion orgy followed after this post had originally been made. Necessary to bring this mess back on track again.

Regards,
Michael
RPF staff

 

[blip]

......

 

[franz bolo]

Look at a 1950's Ford, then look at a 1970's Ford.

That's what happened here with the design. Things can change radically in 20 years.


FB

 

[blip]

......

......

 

[Howard]

You're exactly right FB, but what I think SeanB13's point in his excellent post concerning form and function, really hit the nail on the head for me.

Okay, form and function shouldn't really come into it when it comes to spaceship designs, but it does somehow to us because we've been treated to those wonderful MCQuarrie and Johnston designs.
The PT designs (for me, anyway) don't really have that wonderful sense of wonder and beauty - the silly looking walker with the eyes and snout a prime example.
Some could argue they're alien designs, therefore have an alien look to them - and alien funtion and form. Okay, that's great, and makes a huge amount of sense, really. But last time I checked there weren't any aliens in the movie theatre watching along with me. EDIT: Come to think of it, I don't think that much thought went into the choice of the designs, as I've seen George standing in front of a art board with the designs pinned up, and he stamps with a hand stamp the designs he likes / wants developed further.
I do wonder if ANH had a similar method of development, or the head of the art department took designs he thought were getting towards what was needed and pushed them forward. EDIT END.
My point?
My point is the OT designs just looked cooler.
A prime example?
Luke's landspeeder. That thing still looks cool today, and did then when it was supposed to be very old - perhaps dating from the PT era. The trouble is, I didn't see anything remotely as beautifully designed in the PT.