Star Wars

It just wouldn't be Star Wars anymore without wipes.

I went through a similar pattern to you, except a couple years younger. I was introduced to Star Wars in Kindergarten a few months after TPM came out, so that was actually the first film I saw, because my parents rented "Episode I" for me (it took them about another 8-9 years to really get a handle on the episode numbering). After that I jumped to the 1995 THX re-mastered version on VHS: the "one last time" edition that turned out to in fact be the final release of the (more or less) original versions of the films for over a decade.



(Lucasfilm did release the unaltered versions on DVD in 2008, but they were a shitty quality rip from a 1993 LaserDisc edition that looked worse than the THX remaster had 13 years earlier.)

I eventually saw the special editions, mostly by chance since I watched the films a lot but didn't have my own copies, so I was at the mercy of video stores and friends with different versions. I also read a ton of EU material at this time, most of it direct prequel tie-ins (I loved R. A. Salvatore's novelization of AOTC ). However, I was only 10 in May 2005, and ROTS was rated PG-13, so my parents didn't allow me to see it even though all my friends got to. So instead I read the graphic novel adaptation, which had to tide me over for about a year until my mom caved on the whole PG-13 issue.

Eldorion wrote:
(Lucasfilm did release the unaltered versions on DVD in 2008, but they were a shitty quality rip from a 1993 LaserDisc edition that looked worse than the THX remaster had 13 years earlier.)

I saw those DVDs at Half Price Books earlier this year, but decided against purchasing them.

In that advertisement, how can they say "the Force is forever" but only release those versions "one last time." That makes no sense! Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Star Wars.

I was really into the video games when I was a kid. Loved Dark Forces and Jedi Knight. Too bad I'll never see a Kyle Katarn movie. He no longer "exists" in the Star Wars universe. I tried getting into the books, and I think I either read most of or finished the first book in the Thrawn trilogy, but didn't go any further.

It just wouldn't be Star Wars anymore without wipes.

The wipes are a crutch.

Yeah, that never made much sense.  The '95 VHS editions each came with a really neat interview of George Lucas by Leonard Maltin which was my first ever exposure to any sort of behind-the-scenes stuff about filmmaking or storytelling (I'm still not sure what I found so interesting about it when I was like seven).







There were some really awesome games, too.  My first Xbox came bundled with the 2002 The Clone Wars video game that they made to tie into AOTC, although it only begins with a couple levels on Geonosis and then proceeds to tell an original story of the subsequent path of the Clone Wars (which was later overwritten by the two animated series of the same name).  That game was great, and the multi-player challenge maps were a lot of fun, too.  But Battlefront 2 surpassed it both technically and in terms of giving the feeling of stepping into the SW universe. I thought The Force Unleashed was just dumb though.  Way overpowered.

Out of the novels I read, I think Death Star was probably my favorite, but for some reason I never got around to the Thrawn Trilogy

Abrams is only one for two on Star Trek- Eldo

What does that mean- both ST suck balls.

I wouldn't call it great, but his first one is hella entertaining. I was never into Trek so I wasn't really bothered by the changes, though it was pretty clear Abrams wished he was directing Star Wars.

Spot-on. But also depressingly close to home.

Hoping for both HITB and Plinkett reviews of The Force Awakens.

I'm sure a lot of people will expect Plinkett to give the sequel trilogy shit due to his reputation, but he's been completely forthright about going against the Internet nerd grain before (such as praising Titanic in his review of that), so RLM is probably the critic whose opinion I'm most curious about. They tend to offer interesting insights, especially in the long-form Plinkett reviews.

For now I am erring on the side of they will be pretty bad based mainly on Abrams previous work- his ST films are mind bendingly awful, Armageddon was stupid and bad, Lost was up its own arse and spun out for money reasons beyond all enduring or enjoyment and had a pathetic ending. Cloverfield was really over rated, just Godzilla via Blair Witch without having the point of the former or the freshness of the latter and less said about the Mission Impossible films the best for all concerned I feel.

I have no idea how you can try to rehabilitate Bakshi's LOTR and then call ST09 "mind-bendingly awful".

{{{I did hate Star Trek Into KHAAAAN though, possibly a little irrationally since it's hardly the worst example of anything, but it exemplified so many shitty trends in moviemaking.}}}

I hate it because its the complete opposite of everything ST and Rodenberry stood for, it craps all over the legacy and original vision from  a great height, all the characters are either awful or misrepresented, some are just woefully miscast (Simon Pegg I'm looking at you- and it comes to something when Doohans Scottish accent is the good one!   ) and the story has plot holes so large you could drive the Enterprise through them sideways.
And thats just to start with.

For all Bakshs faults you can at least see he is trying to preserve the feel of the original work and its characters and the books style and dialogue.

I've never been a Star Trek fan but even to me it was obvious that Abrams didn't really want to be making Star Trek movies. But with the first one at least, I thought he did a good job at what he was trying to do (making an audition reel for Star Wars) and I enjoyed the film.  A solid 7/10 all-ages blockbuster.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:For all Bakshs faults you can at least see he is trying to preserve the feel of the original work and its characters and the books style and dialogue.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but I never associated the feel of LOTR with generic '70s fantasy art and massive cocaine use.

You cant get solely tied up with the artistic views of the times- there is a half decent attempt at an adaption there in the script- you could remake it with much better more modern animation and it would still be a decent attempt at a script.
If in 40 years time someone took PJ's scripts and remade it with whatever new visuals are of the time it would still be appalling because of the poorness of the scripts at the heart of it.

As to the first ST film I dont even know where to start on how badly written it is, there isnt just a plot hole, its continual plot holes from the very start until the conclusion- in fact its more plot hole than story.
And the characters are really, really poorly realised even on the rare occasion when the performance is actually good (ok its just Karl Urban thats good in his role and well cast).

The box set of William Shakespeare's Star Wars arrived by mail today, can't wait to read the last two books

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You cant get solely tied up with the artistic views of the times- there is a half decent attempt at an adaption there in the script- you could remake it with much better more modern animation and it would still be a decent attempt at a script.
If in 40 years time someone took PJ's scripts and remade it with whatever new visuals are of the time it would still be appalling because of the poorness of the scripts at the heart of it.

As to the first ST film I dont even know where to start on how badly written it is, there isnt just a plot hole, its continual plot holes from the very start until the conclusion- in fact its more plot hole than story.
And the characters are really, really poorly realised even on the rare occasion when the performance is actually good (ok its just Karl Urban thats good in his role and well cast).

The first ST film is great fun, it never flags, its always cool and entertaining, I liked it a lot. The second one was boring and flat, the pacing was like walking in lead boots, it lacked the zing of the first one.

I cant say I found it fun at all- it was far to big an insult to ST to be fun. As too cool- maybe you like lens flare but beyond that I'm not really sure what cool means in this context- besides ST was never cool, it was nerdy, thoughtful, social commentary disguised as an action adventure in space. It was never just stuff exploding for the sake of stuff exploding.
And given the plot doesnt make sense for a single second of the run time and it has one of the worst, least developed poorly conceived villians ever I cant say that combined with the other major issues make it entertaining. Its a car wreck of a film covered in superficial gloss.

I wish I could remember the first Abrams ST movie, but it just wasn't memorable enough. It didn't take itself seriously enough to be Star Trek. They thought they were taking themselves seriously, but they were just going through the motions.

Though the second movie wasn't any better in that regard, the fact that it was so far off base allowed me to enjoy Uhura and Spock's love bickerings. It was like great, cheeky fanfic.

Change the character names, the uniforms and the shape of the ships and no one would ever guess it was supposed to be anything to do with ST at all.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You cant get solely tied up with the artistic views of the times- there is a half decent attempt at an adaption there in the script- you could remake it with much better more modern animation and it would still be a decent attempt at a script.
If in 40 years time someone took PJ's scripts and remade it with whatever new visuals are of the time it would still be appalling because of the poorness of the scripts at the heart of it.

I hear what you're saying, but I think Bakshi's script dissolved into an complete mess by the time he got to the halfway point of the film.  The first act or so has some decent to good stuff in it, but beyond that point it quickly loses all cohesion or sense.

I would say its good until the end of Fellowship (and that PJ follows its structure almost note for note including making many of the same changes).
But even after that there are moments that I find surprisingly effective, or at least surprising in a way worthy of some recognition, in what the manage to convey in tiny amounts of time.
For example the personal relationship between Ugluk and Grishnak is more effectively conveyed in the tiny amount of time Bakshi has for it than it ever is in PJ's much longer run time.

Do you know what always ruins Star Trek for me (and this goes for every attempt at Star Trek).... making up of new deadly gloops. Examples: Red Matter (really... that was a creative name), Theyleron (flip side... trying to had with the name), Omega particle etc.

I think that is the lamest way to write a plot. Just make something up that requires no explanation... just accept its deadly! At least the genesis device had some back story!!!

Abrahms listen! Dont make up some shit like this (or those damn medichlorians) for SW!