May the force be with you: All encompassing Star Wars thread (spoilers inside)

[sycamore]

I think the smart old lady character works much better for Carrie Fisher. Never thought she was that good looking really. Since wearing a bikini doesn't make you good looking.

Come at me, nerds. lol

She was VERY good looking in the first movie (ANH) but she aged pretty fast -- probably a result of all the cocaine she took in her younger years.

 

[dahrougem2]

Natalie Portman is still GOAT. Though Daisy Ridley can slowly overtake her

 

[UncleRisto]

Natalie Portman is still GOAT. Though Daisy Ridley can slowly overtake her

I'm right there with ya.

 

[The Shermanator]

I'm right there with ya.

Yeah the second time I watched it I was caught up in how attractive she was

 

[Tweaky]

IMO, Portman's worst scenes are when she is asked to act opposite Christensen. But it was not her best performance. Nor was it all Hayden's fault. But at some point you cannot keep blaming Lucas for everything wrong with movies that we ultimately enjoyed. Were they the best? No. Were they as good as the OT? No. Did they ever have a chance to be? Hell no. None of us gave the movies the slightest chance of that. It is like comparing today's Av's with the 2001 or 1996 roster.

 

[Hennessy]

I think the prequels are worse without the comparison to the OT. Sure, they were disappointing, but without that connection they lose the only thing they ever had going for them and simply become Bad Movies.

 

[dahrougem2]

IMO, Portman's worst scenes are when she is asked to act opposite Christensen. But it was not her best performance. Nor was it all Hayden's fault. But at some point you cannot keep blaming Lucas for everything wrong with movies that we ultimately enjoyed. Were they the best? No. Were they as good as the OT? No. Did they ever have a chance to be? Hell no. None of us gave the movies the slightest chance of that. It is like comparing today's Av's with the 2001 or 1996 roster.

I thought they had a chance to be so much better than the original trilogy, actually. The storyline is so much better. Anakin turning to the dark side to become Darth Vader is probably something that a director would drool over today. They were just done so poorly

 

[Pokecheque]

IMO, Portman's worst scenes are when she is asked to act opposite Christensen. But it was not her best performance. Nor was it all Hayden's fault. But at some point you cannot keep blaming Lucas for everything wrong with movies that we ultimately enjoyed. Were they the best? No. Were they as good as the OT? No. Did they ever have a chance to be? Hell no. None of us gave the movies the slightest chance of that. It is like comparing today's Av's with the 2001 or 1996 roster.

Lucas was fantastic when he worked with a team. When left to his own devices he can be a disaster. I read somewhere the first cut of Star Wars was beyond bad. It wasn't until his wife at the time took it and carefully edited it that it became a masterpiece. He also was at his best in terms of script-writing with Lawrence Kasdan, who turned down the offer to help write the prequels, not sure why. Perhaps he got an idea of the direction Lucas wanted to go and wisely stayed away. No surprise Abrams hunted him down to help write the new movies. Lastly, no surprise the best film in the series, and quite possibly best sci-fi film of all time, was directed by a celebrated veteran director who brought out the best performances from all actors involved. Material as heavy as the prequels probably would have benefited from said veteran director.

Basically no one stepped up to tell George Lucas "uh, dude, this isn't good", not to mention his weird obsession with "updating" his films. So yeah, Lucas deserves the lion's share of the blame. Not all of it, but he did write, direct, and pretty much oversee all areas of the films.

Lucas's biggest mistake by far, though, was casting Hayden Christensen for what is the most pivotal role in the entire series. That role needed a very good actor, and instead Lucas went with one of the worst to ever grace the screen. He's even horrid in the otherwise good movie "Life as a House." Mark Hammill's performance wasn't exactly good in the original Star Wars, but Luke Skywalker also isn't nearly as complex a character as Anakin.

 

[McMetal]

The prequels now actually look even worse to me, after watching VII a few times. The new one puts in stark contrast all the things the prequels did wrong by either doing them better, or not doing them at all. I thought they suffered a lot in comparison to 4-5-6, but when you see what a really talented team can do when they step away from the heroic monomyth (that's kind of impossible to screw up) within the Star Wars universe, it really highlights the flaws of the prequels.

 

[McMetal]

Lucas was fantastic when he worked with a team. When left to his own devices he can be a disaster. I read somewhere the first cut of Star Wars was beyond bad. It wasn't until his wife at the time took it and carefully edited it that it became a masterpiece. He also was at his best in terms of script-writing with Lawrence Kasdan, who turned down the offer to help write the prequels, not sure why. Perhaps he got an idea of the direction Lucas wanted to go and wisely stayed away. No surprise Abrams hunted him down to help write the new movies. Lastly, no surprise the best film in the series, and quite possibly best sci-fi film of all time, was directed by a celebrated veteran director who brought out the best performances from all actors involved. Material as heavy as the prequels probably would have benefited from said veteran director.

Basically no one stepped up to tell George Lucas "uh, dude, this isn't good", not to mention his weird obsession with "updating" his films. So yeah, Lucas deserves the lion's share of the blame. Not all of it, but he did write, direct, and pretty much oversee all areas of the films.

Lucas's biggest mistake by far, though, was casting Hayden Christensen for what is the most pivotal role in the entire series. That role needed a very good actor, and instead Lucas went with one of the worst to ever grace the screen. He's even horrid in the otherwise good movie "Life as a House." Mark Hammill's performance wasn't exactly good in the original Star Wars, but Luke Skywalker also isn't nearly as complex a character as Anakin.

That's it right there. Nobody at any level had the stones to tell Lucas he was making mistakes.

 

[Pokecheque]

Man, some of y'all must have some ungodly standards for hot women if you don't think Princess Leia was attractive.

 

[UncleRisto]

Man, some of y'all must have some ungodly standards for hot women if you don't think Princess Leia was attractive.

On a general level, but Princess Leia has (or had) a cult-like sex symbol status which wouldn't exist if she didn't wear a bikini in a scifi film for all the virgin nerds in the 80s. (Sounds harsh but hey. ) She even told Daisy Ridley to fight for her outfit to avoid that.

Besides, Ridley is far more attractive than Carrie Fisher ever was.

But anyways, as our delightful ex-mod once said: THIS IS NOT A BABE THREAD.

 

[LazRNN]

Lucas's biggest mistake by far, though, was casting Hayden Christensen for what is the most pivotal role in the entire series. That role needed a very good actor, and instead Lucas went with one of the worst to ever grace the screen. He's even horrid in the otherwise good movie "Life as a House." Mark Hammill's performance wasn't exactly good in the original Star Wars, but Luke Skywalker also isn't nearly as complex a character as Anakin.

I haven't seen Hayden Christensen in anything else (I've heard he's been much better in other roles)... but I have seen Natalie Portman, Samuel Jackson, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Terrance Stamp, etc. in other work, and I'd hate to judge any of them based entirely on what they did in the prequels... they've all been so much better in other roles. I don't think Lucas would have done much with a better actor. He's not an actor's director, and he didn't write good material for the actors to work with.

Empire really had the perfect creative formula... Lucas was very much in charge of crafting the story but he knew his limitations, so he hired writers and a very good "actor's director" to direct. Irvin Kirshner by all accounts worked with the actors and often changed dialogue to make things work. I don't think Richard Marquand was willing to do that.

Ron Howard claims Lucas asked him to direct the prequels and that Spielberg and Zemeckis were also asked, and they all told him he should direct it himself. It's too bad they didn't tell him he should find someone upcoming who would be willing to carry out Lucas' vision (those guys were way too big to be Lucas' traffic cop). I also think Lucas was seduced by CGI and thought it could help him overcome some of his limitations that led to him handing off directing duties to collaborators for the OT sequels. He clearly focused his creative energy there at the expense of script and acting.

I wish Lucas had stuck to the Empire blueprint for the prequels and I wish he was doing the same for the new trilogy. For everything that I enjoyed about TFA, it still feels too much like fan fiction. Hopefully the next one can take the sequel trilogy in a new direction.

 

[RockLobster]

Hayden publicly said his wooden acting was at the direction of George Lucas.

While I would never call him a particularly "gifted" actor, he has shown in other work that he can be solid. Case in point, "Shattered Glass". I thought he did a fine job in that one.

My personal opinion has already been shared by some--no one had the courage to tell Lucas where things weren't working. I also believe a similar situation occurred with the planning of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull" (in the early 90's, Lucas had planned on the 4th film in the Indy series being titled "Indiana Jones and the Saucermen from Mars", ultimately, around the time Independence Day was out, Spielberg--while not being enthralled with aliens in an Indy movie--was able to sort of kibosh it since it would have been viewed as "too similar"...now, I believe Spielberg should have done the same with Crystal Skull, but that's another debate for another time).

Speaking of Lucas, if anyone watched his recent interview with Charlie Rose, it seems quite apparent that he's not a fan of TFA, and perhaps he is a bit sour that Disney didn't want to go with his story ideas for this new trilogy (he even appears to call Disney "white slave traders" before failing to complete his thought/sentence in which he calls them that). Oh well, George. You sold you company and the rights to Star Wars for 4 BILLION dollars, you showed with the prequel trilogy that you may have been out of touch with not just what the audience wants, but with storytelling in general.

I also think Lucas was seduced by CGI and thought it could help him overcome some of his limitations that led to him handing off directing duties to collaborators for the OT sequels. He clearly focused his creative energy there at the expense of script and acting.

I wish Lucas had stuck to the Empire blueprint for the prequels and I wish he was doing the same for the new trilogy. For everything that I enjoyed about TFA, it still feels too much like fan fiction. Hopefully the next one can take the sequel trilogy in a new direction.

I don't have a problem with him liking CGI so much, especially in a world like he created with Star Wars. The simple truth is that the digitalization of movies (CGI, etc.) allowed him an opportunity to finally have a chance to show what had been in his head. The Original Trilogy, given the technology available at the time, just never had that chance. He touched on this a bit in the Charlie Rose interview, talking about CGI allowing him to do a Yoda fight because he always wanted to do/see one.

Also, he has absolutely 0 to do with The Force Awakens. He's not involved at all (your last part there, seemed to indicate that you believed he had something to do with it, perhaps I misread it?)

 

[LazRNN]

Yes, you're misreading it. I'm saying I wish Lucas were still involved as a story writer/producer as he was on Empire... if I thought he was still involved with TFA I couldn't exactly call it "fan fiction"... it would just be derivative, like Return of the Jedi. Just to be clear I don't wish he were writer/director again, and he probably wouldn't make the decision to hand off key creative roles to people who can handle it better, but once upon a time he did and I wish he still had that mindset.

I have no problem with CGI-- it's an incredible tool. But too often it's not just a tool, but the medium. I think that was the case with the Star Wars prequels and way too many big budget Hollywood spectacles these days. But again, when used as a tool, CGI is fantastic. David Fincher is one who really does amazing stuff with CGI as a tool. You watch his films and never have any idea it's there.

 

[Hennessy]

Man, some of y'all must have some ungodly standards for hot women if you don't think Princess Leia was attractive.

Meh. ANH Leia was my first fantasy. To this day...yeah. But the subsequent films, including "Slave Leia"...never did it for me.

 

[hockeyfish]

Woo, just saw it finally. Wasn't spoiled in the least bit. Star Wars has always been filled with plot holes and hurried concepts from the get-go. What it is has always been very entertaining. And this one was by far the most entertaining of the bunch. So, it worked well, very well.

But I still can't figure out who it was who initially gave the map at the beginning. Were we supposed to know? Was it Wedge? Was he supposed to be important?

 

[RockLobster]

But I still can't figure out who it was who initially gave the map at the beginning. Were we supposed to know? Was it Wedge? Was he supposed to be important?

Unless I'm mistaken, the actor is Max von Sydow (a legend in his own right), and according to IMDb, his character was named "Lor San Tekka"

 

[LazRNN]

The guy at the beginning was a new character played by Max Von Sydow, a rather distinguished Swedish actor with a career spanning 60 years. I think we were supposed to infer he was an important guy just because Max Von Sydow was playing him....

[spoil]...and be surprised when he was killed in the first minute.[/spoil]

 

[LazRNN]

I watched the Charlie Rose interview, and before making the white slaver comment he was talking about the films as his "children", and then about selling his children. It's fairly obviously a joke about that and not an attempt to call Disney white slavers. Probably not a wise choice of words considering the propensity of folks in the Internet age to take things out of context and sensationalize, but it's not difficult to understand what he's actually trying to say if you listen to the whole thing.

 

[RockLobster]

I watched the Charlie Rose interview, and before making the white slaver comment he was talking about the films as his "children", and then about selling his children. It's fairly obviously a joke about that and not an attempt to call Disney white slavers. Probably not a wise choice of words considering the propensity of folks in the Internet age to take things out of context and sensationalize, but it's not difficult to understand what he's actually trying to say if you listen to the whole thing.

I did watch the whole thing, and I don't believe he came off very well at all. And yes, while it appears like he's making a joke, it was just such a poor choice of words.

 

[LazRNN]

I did watch the whole thing, and I don't believe he came off very well at all. And yes, while it appears like he's making a joke, it was just such a poor choice of words.

Poor choice of words, yes. Evoking "slavery" is never a good metaphor choice, not unlike evoking Nazis as a metaphor. But there's all these click bait headlines now saying "Lucas calls Disney 'White Slavers'". The comment probably happened during the course of a 1-2 hour long conversation (edited down to an hour) that was not scripted or supervised by PR folks, and it was an off the cuff joke after Rose said "You sold your children (referring to the 'Star Wars' films)." It's not really outrageous in that context. Bad joke, but more excusable than all these people taking the words out of context (I'm referring here to Variety and USA Today and such... news organizations that should hold themselves to some kind of minimal standard). These headlines are not off the cuff like Lucas' joke, they are intentionally twisting his words for click bait.

 

[RockLobster]

Poor choice of words, yes. Evoking "slavery" is never a good metaphor choice, not unlike evoking Nazis as a metaphor. But there's all these click bait headlines now saying "Lucas calls Disney 'White Slavers'". The comment probably happened during the course of a 1-2 hour long conversation (edited down to an hour) that was not scripted or supervised by PR folks, and it was an off the cuff joke after Rose said "You sold your children (referring to the 'Star Wars' films)." It's not really outrageous in that context. Bad joke, but more excusable than all these people taking the words out of context (I'm referring here to Variety and USA Today and such... news organizations that should hold themselves to some kind of minimal standard). These headlines are not off the cuff like Lucas' joke, they are intentionally twisting his words for click bait.

While hearing the whole phrase and trying to get its context was the main reason I watched the interview, I felt he came off bad because of his words about The Force Awakens. I don't know how to describe it fully, but he almost comes off as "petty" because they didn't use his story treatments. Almost as if he decided that he wasn't really going to like it when it was made clear that they were going to 100% do this without anything from Lucas himself...which, and I'm sorry, but I don't feel like Disney owed anything to him being involved. If he wanted some Creative Control, I'm positive he could have gotten that from them when negotiating to sell. The bottom line is, Disney paid 4 Billion dollars to acquire Star Wars (and Indiana Jones, but we all know what they viewed the Crowning Jewel to be). If he wanted to make sure certain things were done, he could have gotten that from them.

He didn't get that, and Disney exercised their right to go in another direction. For what it's worth, I LOVE the direction they went in with. I really like the new characters they brought in, and I'm particularly intrigued to see how Kylo's story unfolds. I'm just not buying that he'll remain a villain through this next new trilogy, not when it seemed like they were showing us just how conflicted he is.

 

[Hennessy]

Lucas came off bad, but I think we're just now getting to honest criticisms of the film - it was fun, the new cast was awesome, but the story was lazy as *****. If all we expect of Star Wars is nostalgia, then screw it. That is a low bar. Oh, it was better than the prequels...no, it was not. The prequels were awful, but they at least had an original story. They were not fun. TFA is fun, but that's all it is. If VIII isn't original and awesome VII will be as bad as Phantom Menace for all it does for Star Wars.

Again, I liked the movie. But it was lazy as hell. The new characters do a lot to save it with their portrayals. The story...not so much.

 

[McMetal]

I disagree. It was clearly a lot of setup, and I bet money it will look a lot better once the next two movies come out.