I read through the whole thread and now I'm just pissed off because I remember how much I hate what the sequel trilogy did to the original characters, lol.
At least in I-III there's compelling story and characters buried under the gimmicks.
I like the Revenge of the Sith book. It's everything the movie could have been. Not all Star Wars books are worth reading, but that one is.
I still have a problem with any society advanced enough to have interstellar faster than light space travel still stuck with a feudalist form of government. So Leia is a Princess because her mother was elected Queen of Naboo and her father was Darth Vader. Or because she is the adopted daughter of the Senator Organa of Alderaan who isn't a King or a Duke, but a Senator. How can a Queen be an elected post? And if the Queen is an elected post, can her daughter be princess without an election and then queen? Or are princesses born but queens have to be elected from a slate of princesses.
The Dune Universe is even worse. First the robots take over. Then humanity revolts and takes it back from the robots. Then we have a system of Dukes and Royal Families for each planet and an Emperor over it all. Wow.
The Expanse has a much more realistic system. The United Nations runs the Earth and tries to run everything and is the old bureaucracy in an ivory tower. The Martians revolted and form their own government that is more militaristic. The Belters are the oppressed workers who revolt and have several different factions. Everybody is racing through the gate to control the new worlds, kind of like our country started out with a big land rush out West.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:I still have a problem with any society advanced enough to have interstellar faster than light space travel still stuck with a feudalist form of government.
I can't imagine why you would assume a link between the two. I mean, look at the advances in tech we've experienced in the last 20 years. If we call that progress, you certainly can't say the same about world governments in general.
Just because you can build a bitchin' fast rocket doesn't mean you can prevent greed and corruption in government and elsewhere.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
Yet the personal computer was not invented in Saudi Arabia or Somalia or anyplace else run by Kings, Sultans or Warlords. Neither was the Smartphone.
I'm not saying that more advanced systems can't be corrupt. There is plenty of corruption in The Expanse. There just aren't any Kings or Dukes or feudal estates involved. They pick their leaders a different way. Democracies can be corrupt. Communist countries can be corrupt. But democracies, capitalist countries and communist countries all come about after the King has been overthrown and the feudal system has been dismantled.
Germany was one of the great technological innovators in the, lets say, late 30 and early 40's....
aircooled said:Germany was one of the great technological innovators in the, lets say, late 30 and early 40's....
And the Weimar Republic was a Constitutional Republic, not a Kingdom. Even Hitler was first appointed as Chancellor of Germany by an elected President and Hitler's dad was not any kind of a King.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Have you ever heard of England, Sweden, or Japan?
There are tons of plot holes and things that don't make sense in Star Wars.
Piece of wisdom I once heard about storytelling: Every story will have plot holes. They can't really be avoided. What matters is if the rest of the story is solid enough that you are able to miss, ignore, or forgive what plot holes are there.
Heard this in relation to John Wick. When he gets captured, Willem Dafoe snipes his captors through a stained glass window. The creators were aware of this plot hole. They just calculated that it was cool enough, and they'd done a good enough job with making the rest of the story compelling to allow that plot hole.
Original Trilogy has plenty of plot holes, but everything else is solid enough for the people who are going to like that type of movie. The people who were going to get caught up on the plot holes of "space princess in the rebellion" weren't going to like the story, even without the plot holes.
Prequels - when I just come off of "I hate sand," I'm gonna notice plot holes.
Sequels - what the actual berkeley?
In reply to Beer Baron :
All three countries are run by elected officials today. Thier feudal systems faded away into the past. England may still have a Queen but the Prime Minister is the true head of State.
Beer Baron said:There are tons of plot holes and things that don't make sense in Star Wars.
Piece of wisdom I once heard about storytelling: Every story will have plot holes. They can't really be avoided. What matters is if the rest of the story is solid enough that you are able to miss, ignore, or forgive what plot holes are there.
Heard this in relation to John Wick. When he gets captured, Willem Dafoe snipes his captors through a stained glass window. The creators were aware of this plot hole. They just calculated that it was cool enough, and they'd done a good enough job with making the rest of the story compelling to allow that plot hole.
Original Trilogy has plenty of plot holes, but everything else is solid enough for the people who are going to like that type of movie. The people who were going to get caught up on the plot holes of "space princess in the rebellion" weren't going to like the story, even without the plot holes.
Prequels - when I just come off of "I hate sand," I'm gonna notice plot holes.
Sequels - what the actual berkeley?
When Star Wars first came out, nobody cared about plot holes. Everybody was blown away by the special effects. I remember seeing it in 1977. We lined up to see it. There was nothing else like it. Look at the cheesy special effects in Star Crash, another 1977 science fiction movie. Nobody else could do it back then. By the time The Rise of Skywalker came out, kids could do spaceships scenes like that on their computers. There were other science fiction movies and tv series out there with special effects every bit as good as Skywalker.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Beer Baron said:There are tons of plot holes and things that don't make sense in Star Wars.
Piece of wisdom I once heard about storytelling: Every story will have plot holes. They can't really be avoided. What matters is if the rest of the story is solid enough that you are able to miss, ignore, or forgive what plot holes are there.
Heard this in relation to John Wick. When he gets captured, Willem Dafoe snipes his captors through a stained glass window. The creators were aware of this plot hole. They just calculated that it was cool enough, and they'd done a good enough job with making the rest of the story compelling to allow that plot hole.
Original Trilogy has plenty of plot holes, but everything else is solid enough for the people who are going to like that type of movie. The people who were going to get caught up on the plot holes of "space princess in the rebellion" weren't going to like the story, even without the plot holes.
Prequels - when I just come off of "I hate sand," I'm gonna notice plot holes.
Sequels - what the actual berkeley?
When Star Wars first came out, nobody cared about plot holes. Everybody was blown away by the special effects. I remember seeing it in 1977. We lined up to see it. There was nothing else like it. Look at the cheesy special effects in Star Crash, another 1977 science fiction movie. Nobody else could do it back then. By the time The Rise of Skywalker came out, kids could do spaceships scenes like that on their computers. There were other science fiction movies and tv series out there with special effects every bit as good as Skywalker.
I was there with you... Great effects, cheesy story line. I still don't like Luke Skywalker...
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
All three of those countries are constitutional monarchies. Even if they are no longer feudal, people still hold noble titles. People with noble titles regularly hold elected office.
Even as special effects have improved, the original trilogy remain great movies and great stories. What made them great was not just the special effects. They're great stories that remain relevant, like 'Lord of the Rings'. What made the sequels crappy was not that the special effects did't exceed what other TV shows and movies are doing. What made them crappy was bad storytelling.
Beer Baron said:Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:NickD said:Despite being a bit confusing, the prequels still tell a more coherent story than the sequels
Definitely. I think it could have worked, but it seems the mistake was not having one person do the overall writing for all three - instead it seems like it was written by committee which left it feeling like it was written as they went along. It also felt like the writers pulled crap out of their butts to make their ideas work, but completely ignoring the established Star Wars lore. Luke "force projecting" to fight Kylo Ren and Rey "force transporting" a light saber to Ben Solo. Like WTF did that come from? Adam Driver did an amazing job with what he was given, but it felt like the character should have been so much better.
I wouldn't say a single writer, but a single unified vision with something to say.
Other people helped the writing on 4-6. Empire was neither written nor directed by George Lucas. Just based on his story. Martha Lucas freaking saved Star Wars in the edit.
7-9 did a poor job of retreading ground that had been covered better in previous movies. 7 and 9 were just JJ Abrams crashing his action figures together while shouting PEW PEW PEW! Last Jedi spent a bunch of time trying to tell us morals that were actually shown and explored in previous movies. "What if the Jedi weren't that great, and their order needed to die out," Oh, you mean like we got a whole prequel series showing us their hubris? "We'll win by saving what we love instead of trying to destroy what we hate..." Oh, you mean like what Luke did in the climax of Return of the Jedi?
God... JJ, I forgot that he ruined Star Wars before he wrecked Star Trek. Shakey camera and starbursts? 
Disney really messed up the movies. Writing and re-writing by committee. Hiring and firing directors. I think they just left Lucas alone on the first movie because they figured it was just another mediocre sci fi flick that would go straight to the drive ins. They didn't really care what he did as long as some kids bought some tickets. After the movie exploded into the theatres, they couldn't tell him what to do. The Mandalorian was better because it was just a TV series and not a major movie. There was less money involved and less corporate oversight. Don't even get me started on what a dog's breakfast CBS turned Star Trek into. Roddenberry actually hired established science fiction writers to write TV scripts for the original series. Nobody else did that back in the 60's.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Disney really messed up the movies. Writing and re-writing by committee. Hiring and firing directors. I think they just left Lucas alone on the first movie because they figured it was just another mediocre sci fi flick that would go straight to the drive ins. They didn't really care what he did as long as some kids bought some tickets. After the movie exploded into the theatres, they couldn't tell him what to do. The Mandalorian was better because it was just a TV series and not a major movie. There was less money involved and less corporate oversight. Don't even get me started on what a dog's breakfast CBS turned Star Trek into. Roddenberry actually hired established science fiction writers to write TV scripts for the original series. Nobody else did that back in the 60's.
Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek wouldn't have existed if not for Lucille Ball's total backing.
You'll need to log in to post.
