The Star Wars franchise

[Johan G]

Some posts were split off from the topic Learning to hover a heli.

I still find model helicopter pilots who can fly extreme 3D maneuvers, especially with such large RC copters as the 600 and 700 size, totally amazing. There's no full scale helicopter that can even come close to the tricks these helis can pull off with a good pilot.

When you're in the presence of a big, 12 pound RC helicopter with over 4 hp being driven into the main and tail rotors, doing high speed loops flips and other gyrations it's rather scary.

Skill level: Jedi. Some of those demos makes me think of that fight* between Yoda and Count Dooku in Star Wars II.

* Which in my opinion was way over the top, but then again I am not all that much into the prequels.

The quality of movies is inversely proportional to the square of the number of spin-offs, prequels, and sequels; I'm just amazed that the general public still has the stomach to watch them. The first ones were alright; but by the time you have made three prequels, one TV show, and a sequel, besides duping the public into spending billions on merchandise, one would think the market for it would crumble. By the way, so Star Wars is not unknown in Scandinavia, is it?

[Johan G]

It is well known (and often pitted against Star Trek).

My favorite though is neither of them but Babylon 5. Much deeper characters, deeper plots, and with a message that if we can get our act together, as in seeing past old disagreements and working together, the world will be a great place, though there will always be struggle and pain in one way or another.

[wkitty42]

@mig: you are aware that Star Wars is a trilogy of trilogies, right? there were nine stories planned from the beginning... they just happened to start from the second trilogy before luke and leia were born... this (current) trilogy is the first of the trilogies and shows the back story... i suspect the next trilogy will be the future after the original where luke and han saved leia and got their battle on

[Buckaroo]

Some of those demos makes me think of that fight* between Yoda and Count Dooku in Star Wars II

Man, I hated that scene. Beyond making the small but majestic Yoda seem ludicrous, I thought the writers betrayed the idea that guys like Yoda and the Emperor operated on a level beyond material toys like lightsabers.

My favorite though is neither of them but Babylon 5.

I too loved Babylon 5. It took a while for the series to find its stride, but seasons 3 and 4 had some of the best stuff I've seen on TV.

Somewhat more on topic: I've watched vids of that R/C pilot before. He's astonishing. Modern electronics and gyros likely help, but wow. In the Old Days when I started into R/C, everything was manual-- there was nothing to help you manage yaw. Learning meant breaking a lot of expensive rotor blades.

-Buck

[Lydiot]

@mig: you are aware that Star Wars is a trilogy of trilogies, right? there were nine stories planned from the beginning... they just happened to start from the second trilogy before luke and leia were born... this (current) trilogy is the first of the trilogies and shows the back story... i suspect the next trilogy will be the future after the original where luke and han saved leia and got their battle on

Actually, I'm not sure that's entirely true. I know there were plenty of rumors even decades ago about three trilogies, but I honestly don't recall Lucas having said that clearly. What I do remember him saying is that when he made Star Wars (A New Hope) he initially wanted to tell the story of Anakin's fall from grace, Luke's journey, and then Vader's redemption. But he saw he couldn't pull that off in one movie, so he picked the part that would be most likely to succeed by being self-contained. I think that was a brilliant move (one of his few brilliant moves). So then when the film was successful he could continue from there to the end.

So if you look at it in that perspective the whole story, as I see it, is really about temptation and greed, a fall from grace into 'darkness', and finally redemption and salvation. All of that was neatly contained in the original trilogy. The prequels gave a backstory we didn't really need, and the way he told it he completely spoiled the cliff-hanger in The Empire Strikes Back. In my opinion it's one of the most awesome moments in movie history, and its impact is destroyed if you've seen the prequels.

At any rate, I would say the new movies will be far less interesting because the original story was already concluded in the first three. We knew the backstory, and we knew the end. Any deeper meaning in the story line was concluded. From this point on it'll just be more light entertainment. In my opinion.

[Lydiot]

Some of those demos makes me think of that fight* between Yoda and Count Dooku in Star Wars II

Man, I hated that scene. Beyond making the small but majestic Yoda seem ludicrous, I thought the writers betrayed the idea that guys like Yoda and the Emperor operated on a level beyond material toys like lightsabers.

-Buck

There is an interview with the Gary Kurtz, the producer of The Empire Strikes Back which every true Star Wars fan should read, because after you read it everything makes sense, completely. In a nutshell, Lucas really was more of an "artistic" director with higher conceptual ambitions when he started out. But between Star Wars (A New Hope) and "Jedi", he went ahead and made Indy #1. That movie was basically just a roller-coaster ride and void of deeper meaning. So then when he got back to "Jedi" his attitude had changed. More action and light drama than substance.

Now consider the first three movies. The last one is clearly different from the first two. The first one is obviously self-contained, and the second needs 1 and 3. But they both deal with bigger themes. In "Hope" we have the obvious 'good vs. evil', but also a boy beginning his passage to manhood. It just happens that it's told through a literal journey and a literal physical struggle. But he leaves his parents and his old town looking for greater things. He's growing up. In the second, that continues, but he has to deal with impatience and temptation. It's almost a bit eastern in terms of philosophy. And we learn from that cliff hanger at the end that we should all learn from the past. Well, in the third, the way I recall it, it's mostly annoying teddy bears, cool scenery and action. Anything of substance is really contained in the final fight between Luke and the bad guys. Frickin' Lucas is even so lazy he recycles the Death Star....!

By contrast, Kurtz tells us that people wanted a different ending, where Leia took over what was left of society and led it, Han died in the middle of the movie, and Luke "rode off into the sunset", metaphorically speaking. And no second Death Star. I think that ending would have been WAY stronger.

[Buckaroo]

Interesting points, thanks for mentioning the Kurtz interview. I'll have to find that and check it out.

I loved Indy #1. The story, action, and character interplay worked for me. Indy #2 didn't work for me. I thought it was tedious, predicatable, and insipid. It literally did include a "roller-coaster ride". Indy #3 returned to giving more focus on character over goofy action. It had a few weak and rushed scenes, but it worked well. Indy #4 could be a textbook example of action over substance.

I enjoyed Return of the Jedi, but I left the theater feeling mixed. All the elements were there, but the story leaned too much on action and juvenile scenes. I have no problem with a furry indigenous species being instrumental in taking down the Empire, but the way it was done with all the goofy stuff was too far over the top. (Did we /really/ need to see a wookie doing Tarzan?) A 2nd Deathstar seemed lazy writing to me as well, but it's plausible. The ending kinda bugged me, being a bit too neat and happy. The good guys win, the bad guys lose, the good guys live, the bad guys die. I'm mixed about killing off Solo, but I agree, Kurtz' ending would have been stronger.

Maybe it's telling that Jedi is the lone one of the three that I saw only once in the theater on its release.

-Buck

[someguy]

I used to be a hardcore science fiction fan. There was some amazing storytelling and mind-bending concepts from the likes of Scott Card, Howard Waldrop, etc. The original Star Wars movie was OK, a fun if unchallenging and overly-cartoonish kiddie space opera. After suffering through the first sequel, it was obvious to me that the studio was intent on making films just engaging enough to children to keep the market for spinoff toys alive. "Oops, doll sales are flagging, time for another lame sequel." I will not waste my time on the rest of a sad lot. Sorry, Trekkies...or is that Drekkies?

[Lydiot]

The ending kinda bugged me, being a bit too neat and happy. The good guys win, the bad guys lose, the good guys live, the bad guys die. I'm mixed about killing off Solo, but I agree, Kurtz' ending would have been stronger.

-Buck

Yeah, agreed. Well, people want happy endings, so studios give that to them. I think they very well could have killed off Solo and have Luke go his own way. I think it'd have made for a stronger story. But of course maybe they'd have made a bit less money. I mean, I doubt people would have chosen not to go see it just because of those things. After all it'd have been a good ride for almost three full movies, what more can one ask for?

[Lydiot]

I will not waste my time on the rest of a sad lot.

I don't think the next set will be as bad as the prequels were. Having said that I think they'll be "pointless" and shallow. I pretty much expect something along the veins of Abraham's Star Treks....

[Buckaroo]

I used to be a hardcore science fiction fan. There was some amazing storytelling and mind-bending concepts from the likes of Scott Card, Howard Waldrop, etc. The original Star Wars movie was OK, a fun if unchallenging and overly-cartoonish kiddie space opera. After suffering through the first sequel, it was obvious to me that the studio was intent on making films just engaging enough to children to keep the market for spinoff toys alive. "Oops, doll sales are flagging, time for another lame sequel." I will not waste my time on the rest of a sad lot. Sorry, Trekkies...or is that Drekkies?

Perhaps Star Wars was a "kiddie space opera" for some. I was a prolific reader of both science fantasy and hard-core SF at the time Star Wars was released, but for me and a few others of my generation, Star Wars unleashed a whole universe of possibilities for the teenage mind in a climate that was otherwise rather dry and negative. There was little to rival the film at the time, and it paved the way for studios to be much more open to SF and fantasy. The success of Star Wars prompted studios to greenlight a number of other significant films and TV programs that would not otherwise have been made.

But to each their own. I never cared much for Card's works and did not think "Enders Game" worthy of a Hugo-- it seemed an over-rated story filled with contrived "boy tactical genius" stuff, an absurd plot, and played rather light and easy with issues of racial extermination. Waldrons's "Them Bones" was OK but that's the only work of his I've read.

I don't think the next set will be as bad as the prequels were. Having said that I think they'll be "pointless" and shallow. I pretty much expect something along the veins of Abraham's Star Treks....

...complete with the oft-mentioned lens flares.

Still, I think there's a better than even chance that the next film might offer a good experience. Abrams' Star Trek films were shallow and even nonsensical at times, but they were watchable. I can't re-watch the awful Lucas prequels. (I've tried.) Abrams' style and flaws are well known, and he's far more open to criticism and the input of others than Lucas. He handles character interaction reasonably well, and I think a lot of the Star Trek film issues are simply poor writing from the likes of Damon Lindelof (the guy who wrote "Prometheus", one of the worst stories I've ever watched.) Given that the new Star Wars film has a lot of other good experienced people involved, I suspect Abrams will be aiming to capture something of the original films rather than force his style on things. So far the look of the film feels much closer to the original series than Lucas' sterile digital prequels. The production will be well-motivated to not repeat the mistakes of the prequels. Disney of course wants to sell toys, but I remember how poorly the toys for the Lucas prequels sold, and I'm sure Disney won't want a repeat of that situation. They also want new and inspired source material to draw people into the parks. So I have some hope that profit may actual motivate story and adventure as well as the usual action roller-coaster. Not holding my breath, though...

-Buck, slightly annoyed that his R/C helicopter comment somehow ended up in a non-relevant thread.

[Lydiot]

test

[Lydiot]

Perhaps Star Wars was a "kiddie space opera" for some. I was a prolific reader of both science fantasy and hard-core SF at the time Star Wars was released, but for me and a few others of my generation, Star Wars unleashed a whole universe of possibilities for the teenage mind in a climate that was otherwise rather dry and negative. There was little to rival the film at the time, and it paved the way for studios to be much more open to SF and fantasy. The success of Star Wars prompted studios to greenlight a number of other significant films and TV programs that would not otherwise have been made.

Totally agree. It was a huge deal at the time and for decades later. The use of dramatic themes, music, audio-visual effects, even in terms of production and business.... clearly groundbreaking.

I never cared much for Card's works and did not think "Enders Game" worthy of a Hugo-- it seemed an over-rated story filled with contrived "boy tactical genius" stuff, an absurd plot, and played rather light and easy with issues of racial extermination. Waldrons's "Them Bones" was OK but that's the only work of his I've read.

Not sure what "card" is, but I agree on Ender's. Absolutely overrated. A lot of contemporary sci-fi is I think. Derivative and too stuffed with visual effects.

I don't think the next set will be as bad as the prequels were. Having said that I think they'll be "pointless" and shallow. I pretty much expect something along the veins of Abraham's Star Treks....

...complete with the oft-mentioned lens flares.

Yuck.

[Lydiot]

Still, I think there's a better than even chance that the next film might offer a good experience. Abrams' Star Trek films were shallow and even nonsensical at times, but they were watchable. I can't re-watch the awful Lucas prequels. (I've tried.) Abrams' style and flaws are well known, and he's far more open to criticism and the input of others than Lucas.

I wonder if that's a good thing though. A lot of Hollywood stuff seems great at inception and then gets ground down to superficial garbage by the machine. Everyone who's got money on the line (or their axx) gets to have a say. Makes for a lot of mediocrity. I wonder if that's not why Prometheus sxxxxd.

He handles character interaction reasonably well, and I think a lot of the Star Trek film issues are simply poor writing from the likes of Damon Lindelof (the guy who wrote "Prometheus", one of the worst stories I've ever watched.) Given that the new Star Wars film has a lot of other good experienced people involved, I suspect Abrams will be aiming to capture something of the original films rather than force his style on things. So far the look of the film feels much closer to the original series than Lucas' sterile digital prequels. The production will be well-motivated to not repeat the mistakes of the prequels. Disney of course wants to sell toys, but I remember how poorly the toys for the Lucas prequels sold, and I'm sure Disney won't want a repeat of that situation. They also want new and inspired source material to draw people into the parks. So I have some hope that profit may actual motivate story and adventure as well as the usual action roller-coaster. Not holding my breath, though...

Character interaction he does quite well, I agree. Lindelof sxxxs, I agree. The first Abrams' Star Trek was actually enjoyable, albeit also quite light. But it would have sufficed if the next one had had more substance I think. It was even thinner though. I think these days filmmakers seem to think that throwing in nods at days gone is somehow always a sure way to win over an audience. Prometheus should have been either more tied into the Alien franchise, or more risks could have been taken to keep it separate. Spectre same thing. A bunch of nods to the old Bond, but for no apparently good reason (in my opinion). Star Trek 2 (Abrams) was the same, with a bunch of rehash. Heck, if I wanted to see the old stuff again I'd watch the old stuff.

But yeah, Abrams is quite competent and I think he could pull off a decent movie, barring a garbage script or 2 million chefs in the place in which one cooks food which cannot be mentioned on this forum for some reason..... I'm sure it'll be flawless technically.

Curious about the score though. I didn't care for Williams' work in the prequels. The original trilogy was just awesome. Really textbook scoring in my opinion.

-Buck, slightly annoyed that his R/C helicopter comment somehow ended up in a non-relevant thread.

Star Wars is no longer relevant!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

[Buckaroo]

Not sure what "card" is, but I agree on Ender's. Absolutely overrated. A lot of contemporary sci-fi is I think. Derivative and too stuffed with visual effects.

Orson Scott Card, author of the novel "Enders Game". I haven't seen the film.

The first Abrams' Star Trek was actually enjoyable, albeit also quite light. But it would have sufficed if the next one had had more substance I think. It was even thinner though. I think these days filmmakers seem to think that throwing in nods at days gone is somehow always a sure way to win over an audience. Prometheus should have been either more tied into the Alien franchise, or more risks could have been taken to keep it separate. Spectre same thing. A bunch of nods to the old Bond, but for no apparently good reason (in my opinion). Star Trek 2 (Abrams) was the same, with a bunch of rehash. Heck, if I wanted to see the old stuff again I'd watch the old stuff.

My wife and I enjoyed the first Abram's Trek. It had some goofy scenes that could have been left on the cutting room floor, but it was a fun romp. Easy to see that the actors were having fun, which is a good sign. The Star Trek franchise is such a mess that I don't expect much. But the second film didn't work for us. An uninspired story coupled with too much frenzied action maybe. And yeah, an odd rehash of the Kahn character which just didn't feel right. Montalban's original Kahn is a hard act to follow, even for Cumberbatch-- if I were writing that script, I would not have tried but instead done something new, especially since they didn't use Kahn in the film's promotion but chose to keep it as a "surprise".

But yeah, Abrams is quite competent and I think he could pull off a decent movie, barring a garbage script or 2 million chefs in the place in which one cooks food which cannot be mentioned on this forum for some reason..... I'm sure it'll be flawless technically.

Curious about the score though. I didn't care for Williams' work in the prequels. The original trilogy was just awesome. Really textbook scoring in my opinion.

I felt kinda bad for Williams. Having to slog through those awful scenes to score that film-- only a true professional could do that.

I have the same worry about the new Star Wars film-- the possibility that too many writers (and producers, and studio execs, and Disney execs...) will have their hands in the script. I can only hope I don't find myself bored and embarrassed in the theater, as I was during "Phantom Menace".

-Buck