-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4741458]Considering that Lucas is a better director than any other non-Lucas director on Star Wars, I don't see a jot of truth in this.
[I]American Graffiti[/I] itself is better than every single film that Kershner, Abrams, Johnson, and whoever else made. Most people act as if Star Wars was the first thing he did. In fact for a lot of critics, at least until the 90s (when SW fans grew up and infiltrated the movie critic business), Lucas' was a case of a promising film-maker, for THX-1138 and Star Wars who became a less interesting film-maker when he made Star Wars.
Most of his contemporaries were baffled with the idea of why he became a producer.
“If I made as much money as George Lucas, I would not decide to become a studio mogul. I cannot understand why he doesn’t want to direct films anymore, because American Graffiti and even Star Wars were very good.”
-- STANLEY KUBRICK
The way Kubrick says, "even Star Wars" is an indication that he thought it was one of his lesser works.
Lucas cast all the actors in the OT, personally cast them. He came up with the characters and names, and places. He came up with the vision. Most of the heavy lifting on the original films were done by him and him alone.
And look...even if you don't share my view about the Prequels (ROTS is the first Star Wars movie I saw in theatres, on my last day of school moreover, and I thoroughly enjoyed it and was immersed in it), I don't see how them being bad somehow negates Lucas as a film-maker. [B][I][U]Francis Ford Coppola's Godfather III is not a good movie, but literally nobody will say that the solution is to do a reboot of Godfather without Coppola at the helm and promote those movies by saying Coppola isn't involved. [/U][/I][/B] The same guy who made the OT, made the PT, in the same way. A lot of the stuff people complained about the prequels had been there in the original trilogy all along. Like the Jedi Order recruiting child soldiers. Go back to ESB, one of the first things Yoda tells Obi-Wan's ghost is that Luke is too old to start training. Luke is basically about 18-19 then, right? So right there, Lucas was setting that up or as it happens...subconsciously laying down tracks.[/quote]
Well, some may say that American Graffiti was well edited and well written than well-directed. Regardless, the idea that the person who directed Attack of the Clones or Phantom Menace is working in the same galaxy (if you'll pardon the pun) as any other Star Wars director that has come along since, just strikes me as completely insane.
Look, I get loving the prequels if you grew up with them but I can't understand how anyone, with even a trace of objectivity, could claim that they are better-made films than the sequels. They just aren't.
[quote]I thought you had a problem with one film-maker doing everything and needing collaborators and so on.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that? All films are a collaboration.
-
[QUOTE=Ilan Preskovsky;4741472]Well, some may say that American Graffiti was well edited and well written than well-directed. [/quote]
They wouldn't know the first things about writing, editing or directing to say that.
Any editor if they are honest about their profession will tell you that there isn't such a thing as a well-edited movie that isn't well-directed. You cannot edit a badly directed movie into a good movie, at least in terms of narrative film. There are avant-garde directors who use bad movies quote unquote and edit and re-edit or splice them to make something weird and that's pretty much the only way you can do that.
[quote]Regardless, the idea that the person who directed Attack of the Clones or Phantom Menace is working in the same galaxy (if you'll pardon the pun) [/quote]
I will not pardon you for that pun.
[quote]I can't understand how anyone, with even a trace of objectivity,[/quote]
Objectively speaking:
-- The Prequels (set 20 years or so before ANH) created an entirely new aesthetic and setting, a world where every detail was chosen to illustrate and put across the world of the Republic and how totally different it was from the Empire. The Sequels which are set 20 years or so after ROTJ for the most part looks just like the OT without any sense of using the visual medium to communicate any information of note about the state of the Galaxy since then.
-- The Prequels were radically different from everything in contemporary cinema. Stuff like the first CGI character Jar Jar Binks who inspired Gollum (and Andy Serkis' career), the Na'vi, Thanos and so on. AOTC and ROTS introduced digital film-making and popularized it. This complicates the ability to judge it against contemporary movies made in that period since it's not playing by the same rules in a lot of respects. But in terms of technical innovation it was leaps ahead of everything at the time...and far more so than the current sequel movies.
-- On an Empirical level, lines of dialogue from the prequels, characters, scenes, moments and situations, as well as music cues have become lasting staples of popular culture, with much references, parodies and satires. In other words, they are classics of the 2000s or functionally indistinguishable from them.
-- As a narrative experience, the Prequels are the only satisfying trilogy of the SW movies. Yoda, Vader, Obi-Wan got complete character arcs across the PT and the OT. Whereas this isn't true of Han, Luke, Leia, since Carrie Fisher died, we didn't get any scenes with all three of them in the ST, and the entire middle part of their lives seems to be missing so we don't know what happened that made the characters in the first movies become the ones we see in the ST.
Subjectively speaking:
-- If you place the prequels against other movies at the time, they are on the whole more enjoyable to rewatch than the LOTR films which came out or the HP movies that were made then (all of which are forgettable mediocre movies) and for that matter the Matrix sequels (remember those). They hold up remarkably well compared to other movies made in that time. They are still as prequels far better than the Hobbit movies, the current HP movies, and what else, there were a lot of prequel concepts that got greenlit when SW arrived.
[quote]Where did I say that? All films are a collaboration.[/QUOTE]
Well you are opposed to Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams collaborating on a franchise.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4741458]Considering that Lucas is a better director than any other non-Lucas director on Star Wars, I don't see a jot of truth in this.
[I]American Graffiti[/I] itself is better than every single film that Kershner, Abrams, Johnson, and whoever else made. Most people act as if Star Wars was the first thing he did. In fact for a lot of critics, at least until the 90s (when SW fans grew up and infiltrated the movie critic business), Lucas' was a case of a promising film-maker, for THX-1138 and Star Wars who became a less interesting film-maker when he made Star Wars.
Most of his contemporaries were baffled with the idea of why he became a producer.
“If I made as much money as George Lucas, I would not decide to become a studio mogul. I cannot understand why he doesn’t want to direct films anymore, because American Graffiti and even Star Wars were very good.”
-- STANLEY KUBRICK
The way Kubrick says, "even Star Wars" is an indication that he thought it was one of his lesser works.
Lucas cast all the actors in the OT, personally cast them. He came up with the characters and names, and places. He came up with the vision. Most of the heavy lifting on the original films were done by him and him alone.
And look...even if you don't share my view about the Prequels (ROTS is the first Star Wars movie I saw in theatres, on my last day of school moreover, and I thoroughly enjoyed it and was immersed in it), I don't see how them being bad somehow negates Lucas as a film-maker. [B][I][U]Francis Ford Coppola's Godfather III is not a good movie, but literally nobody will say that the solution is to do a reboot of Godfather without Coppola at the helm and promote those movies by saying Coppola isn't involved. [/U][/I][/B] The same guy who made the OT, made the PT, in the same way. A lot of the stuff people complained about the prequels had been there in the original trilogy all along. Like the Jedi Order recruiting child soldiers. Go back to ESB, one of the first things Yoda tells Obi-Wan's ghost is that Luke is too old to start training. Luke is basically about 18-19 then, right? So right there, Lucas was setting that up or as it happens...subconsciously laying down tracks. [/QUOTE]
Jack, I agree with some of your points, but you are letting your feelings cloud your judgement abit. No filmmaker is perfect. Lucas included. What he did, he did well. But he had considerable flaws. Most of which he has gone on record admitting himself.
ANH was Lucas, yes. But look at how much his initial ideas changed compared to what we ended up with. How did that happen? Because he got input from multiple sources. He famously screened it for a bunch of other auteurs such as Coppola and Spielberg among others and he asked each for their opinions/suggestions and he took those on board. Brian De Palma is the one who rewrote the opening scrawl into what was ultimately used in the film because the original was absolute gibberish. The film almost ended up being a failure, but many people involved believed in the vision enough to make it work.
Lucas had ideas for what he wanted to do, but he actually approached others to write the script for what ended up being ESU. Originally, he had Alan Dean Foster (who wrote the film adaptation for ANH) write Splinter Of The Mind's Eye and that was the placeholder in case ANH wasn't a success at the box office. Luckily, it was.
Lucas approached Leigh Brackett to write the screenplay. Her efforts were rejected (she died before she could do rewrites). So, impressed with his work writing the screenplay for Raider's Of The Lost Ark, Lucas hired Kasdan to do the rewrites. Brackett and Kasdan are credited as the screenwriters. Lucas got a story credit.
You need to understand that a screenplay and story are two different things. Lucas provided an outline with what characters and plots he wanted in the film. The screenwriter then breaks it down and handles everything else including dialogue, stage direction etc. It was only once that was done did Lucas give it the once over to ensure it lined up with his "vision".
I'll use Spider-man as an example. Stan and Ditko created the characters and handled the story up to a point. But everything afterwards by other writers builds upon that initial "vision." Same with Star Wars.
Please don’t think I am out to knock Lucas. I have tremendous respect for him and love what he set in motion. But he wasn't entirely perfect as a filmmaker. Direction? Can't fault him. But scripts were his major failing.
-
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;4741579]Jack, I agree with some of your points, but you are letting your feelings cloud your judgement abit.[/quote]
Name me one person whose judgment isn't clouded by feelings. At least i don't go around saying so-and-so is objectively poor, or use poorly researched claims as the basis of my viewpoint.
[quote] No filmmaker is perfect.[/quote]
Not about that. This is about denying due credit to Lucas and portraying him as someone who needs a minder. That's insulting and degrading.
[quote]ANH was Lucas, yes. But look at how much his initial ideas changed compared to what we ended up with.[/quote]
Which happened on all his films, including THX-1138 and also American Graffiti and each of the prequels. Lucas dropped subplots, ideas and concepts through the prequels as well. Maybe if Lucas kept the original idea and didn't change during the production of prequels those would be better? Or is that the fact that the ideas changed reflect his uncertainty. The fact is he worked the same way on the prequels as he did before. The only difference is that the prequels were more prepared, and more competently produced because a lot had changed in-between in terms of facilities and stuff that Lucas didn't have the same hassles he did when he produced the original films which were grueling.
[quote]He famously screened it for a bunch of other auteurs such as Coppola and Spielberg among others and he asked each for their opinions/suggestions and he took those on board.[/quote]
Spielberg said that he liked the movie at once, while others didn't. And the reason is that people simply didn't like Lucas' concept of reviving serials and space opera. A lot of the complaints people had about Star Wars during ANH wasn't the writing it was the concept and idea. To them they wanted Star Wars to be like Spaceballs.
[quote] Brian De Palma is the one who rewrote the opening scrawl into what was ultimately used in the film because the original was absolute gibberish. [/quote]
Brian DePalma didn't like the movies and concept and sees Star Wars as kids' stuff, so obviously Lucas needed him as a representative of the kind of audience he needed to win over. All DePalma did was shorten that's all.
[quote]Lucas approached Leigh Brackett to write the screenplay. Her efforts were rejected (she died before she could do rewrites). So, impressed with his work writing the screenplay for Raider's Of The Lost Ark, Lucas hired Kasdan to do the rewrites. Brackett and Kasdan are credited as the screenwriters. Lucas got a story credit. [/quote]
And again the actual story Lucas wrote included the plot of ESB as it exists now. It was Lucas who did the rewrite and had final say. Lucas created the characters of Yoda and Lando, not Lawrence Kasdan nor Leigh Brackett.
[quote]You need to understand that a screenplay and story are two different things. [/quote]
It also differs from movie to movie, and Star Wars wasn't made like a conventional movie anyway. Rinzler's Making of ESB goes into this in detail.
[quote]I'll use Spider-man as an example. Stan and Ditko created the characters and handled the story up to a point. But everything afterwards by other writers builds upon that initial "vision." Same with Star Wars.[/quote]
That wasn't remotely the case at the time of ESB. It's more comparable to the Disney Era where Lucas sold his stuff, where before he at least had ownership of his content and material which neither Lee nor Ditko did.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4741629]Name me one person whose judgment isn't clouded by feelings. At least i don't go around saying so-and-so is objectively poor, or use poorly researched claims as the basis of my viewpoint.
Not about that. This is about denying due credit to Lucas and portraying him as someone who needs a minder. That's insulting and degrading. [/QUOTE]
Who is saying he needs a minder? Not once has anybody said that. I have been incredibly respectful in my posts about Lucas and I am highlighting BOTH sides. I use the same sources as everybody else and I'll happily discuss them further with you. But I don't put up things If i haven't extensively researched it before hand. I won't speak for others, but I am not here to sully his work or legacy. I apologize if it came across like that.
-
[QUOTE=Somecrazyaussie;4741816]Who is saying he needs a minder? Not once has anybody said that. [/quote]
Well this poster here said,
[quote][QUOTE=Ilan Preskovsky;4741472]Well, some may say that American Graffiti was well edited and well written than well-directed. [/quote][/quote]
That statement aside from being totally ignorant of how film-making works, is essentially saying that Lucas can't direct and that his work was always saved or bailed out later.
And that's offensive and disrespectful.
If you dislike the prequels, fact of the matter is simply that a talented great film-maker can make weak films or bad films but it doesn't annul everything he previously achieved. Nobody would say The Godfather III means that anybody other than Coppola can make a good Godfather movie.
[quote]I apologize if it came across like that.[/QUOTE]
I get that. You have been respectful, moreso than others here.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4740242]
TROS is also the movie with the distinction of coming after SOLO, the first Star Wars to be a commercial flop (something that would have been unthinkable at one point) and likewise it has to deal with the backlash of TLJ...which yeah was definitely real. I remember seeing that movie and at the end the audience on opening day around me were audibly complaining about it.
[/QUOTE]
Solo never had a chance in hell of being anything other than a flop. Leaving aside the issues of its release date it was also a Han Solo movie which
* Didn't star Harrison Ford who was really the only reason Han was ever tolerable.
* Focused on the least interesting period of his life, before he ever met Luke and Leia.
* Didn't have the sandbox of the old EU to play around with.
That film was never going to succeed no matter what backlash TLJ did or did not face.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4740826]
He could also wrote these lines:
- "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause?"/
[/QUOTE]
That line would resonate more strongly if Lucas didn't fall into the trap of having monarchs be the only sympathetic and effective politicians when he was in charge of the films.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4740242]
"...Vader should not have been redeemed and should have taken over the Empire" and all kinds of stuff people said then.[/QUOTE]
There's an argument to be made that Vader's redemption wasn't really earned and has in some ways contributed to how lazy certain redemption arcs are in modern times.
-
[QUOTE=Agent Z;4742237]Solo never had a chance in hell of being anything other than a flop.[/quote]
Most people expected a hit before its release, because a Star Wars movie failing at the box-office was unthinkable. It literally never happened before.
[quote]* Didn't star Harrison Ford who was really the only reason Han was ever tolerable.[/quote]
The prequels featured Obi-Wan and Anakin Skywalker with entirely new actors than the OT, and those movies were commercially very successful and sold on the Star Wars name. Especially since it featured actors who were relatively unknown...Ewan McGregor was known for some English movies he made but Star Wars was his first blockbuster. Certainly a much smaller profile than Alec Guinness (multi-Oscar winner and nominee) had when he played Obi-Wan.
Alden Ehrenreich was like Harrison Ford, discovered by Francis Ford Coppola. He appeared in Coppola's Tetro, and other indie films after that such as Hail Caesar by the Coen Brothers. So he was a good choice for that role in theory. He more or less had the same profile as Ford when he broke out as a movie star for A New Hope.
[quote]* Focused on the least interesting period of his life, before he ever met Luke and Leia.[/quote]
In other words, the Han who shot first, the guy in the Cantina scene. Which is considered by a lot of Star Wars fans to be the "coolest" version of Han.
The problem with the movie is they didn't stick to that. They made the movie with two Hans...the Han who shoots first, and also will one day say, "changed my mind, kid"...and put that in a version of him that existed before.
I am not saying that a Han Solo prequel is a good idea or something that should have been made...I agree that it's a bad concept because of what you said, but in theory the movie could have succeeded and worked.
Ideally the movie should have focused on Han's friendship with Lando Calrissian and tell a story about two friends who were close and then grow apart, but who might one day come back again together. It should have been a kind of buddy movie. Instead it's basically a by-the-numbers story...you know "Han Solo Begins" or what not. I also think it was a mistake to make the Kessel Run into a real thing and not a boasting lie that Han told in ANH (obvious from Alec Guinness' "oh really" smirk and raised eyebrow).
[quote]There's an argument to be made that Vader's redemption wasn't really earned and has in some ways contributed to how lazy certain redemption arcs are in modern times.[/QUOTE]
That's fair, but I think it still works with Vader in-character terms. It helps that stuff like Alderaan was Tarkin's doing and not his (which isn't to lessen his complicity but it wasn't his order or call) and Vader seemed to have low-key objections to that (such as him telling imperials that the Death Star is insignificant compared to the Force).
It also helps that Vader never does real damage to the rebels aside from killing Obi-Wan. He fails at literally every command given to him. I never got this idea of Vader being some great general...because if you look at the OT every single thing he does is a cock up. He's a terrible general and commander, and poor leader. So he was never a really damaging villain, as compared to Kylo Ren in the ST who is.
That's the other thing that made me realize that Lucas knows what he's doing. If you look at the prequels and OT in sequence or you know Marc Klimo's "ring theory" and see them intercut, it becomes totally obvious that the whiny Anakin from the prequels is the same character in the OT. The same arrogance, the same petty need to be taken seriously, the same impulsiveness. It's all there. It's just not apparent in the OT because we see things from Luke and the rebels perspective.
-
I've heard Rise even handwaves the controversy surrounding how the Holdo Maneuver invalidates the concept of their space battles by saying that the odds of successfully, accurately colliding with a ship in a way that does that kind of damage is very small, perhaps only having been helped by how massive the Supremacy was.
-
[QUOTE=Robotech Master;4742680]I've heard Rise even handwaves the controversy surrounding how the Holdo Maneuver invalidates the concept of their space battles by saying that the odds of successfully, accurately colliding with a ship in a way that does that kind of damage is very small, perhaps only having been helped by how massive the Supremacy was.[/QUOTE]
Finn says during one of the mission briefings that what Holdo did was a one off. They are implying that it is a maneuver that only has the slimmest chance of success and was, for lack of a better word, a fluke.
-
Which I didn't buy whatsoever.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4742156]Well this poster here said,
That statement aside from being totally ignorant of how film-making works, is essentially saying that Lucas can't direct and that his work was always saved or bailed out later.
And that's offensive and disrespectful.
If you dislike the prequels, fact of the matter is simply that a talented great film-maker can make weak films or bad films but it doesn't annul everything he previously achieved. Nobody would say The Godfather III means that anybody other than Coppola can make a good Godfather movie.
I get that. You have been respectful, moreso than others here.[/QUOTE]
I said that I've heard this opinion. It doesn't mean I agree with it.
I love both American Graphitti and Star Wars. I think he's an incredible visionary who radically transformed American cinema. This doesn't change that he hadn't directed a film between Star Wars and the Phantom Menace and I don't think his direction or writing on the prequels was in any respect up to snuff. That doesn't take away his earlier achievements but whether he had gotten rusty or cinema had moved past him. the Prequels are the work of someone who shows little of the writing or directing skills of either Rian Johnson or JJ Abrams. They featured atrocious dialogue, wooden acting from great actors, under-written character arcs and a brutally ugly CGI aesthetic that removed any sense of physical weight from what was happening. In terms of story, Episode I decided to ground the whole series in lame ass trade wars and you can easily remove the whole thing and you wouldn't lose a beat in the prequel trilogy. Episode II was mired by an awful portrayal of Anakin and a rubbish romance but it was a pretty lackluster start to the Clone Wars that was only really redeemed by Ewan McGregor. Episode III was the only one of the prequels that had any real need to exist and its final hour is genuinely very involving but Anakin's fall to the dark side didn't exactly make a ton of sense, the "revelation" that senator Palpatine was really Sidious was moronic, Padme's death was insultingly stupid and, again, the dialogue was just awful. It does have one of my absolute favourite terrible quotes, though, in "love can't save you Padme, only my new powers can do that." Genius.
The prequels were complete stiffs that had none of the swashbuckling, playful sense of fun that the originals had. They had almost no memorable original characters and spent way too much time with somber Jedis somberly overexplaining everything to each other. And nothing that the sequels have done have hurt Star Wars as much as turning Darth Vader into a whiny, thoroughly punchable brat. And I'm not referring to Jake Lloyd here either. Plus, while the sequels were a largely fun further exploration of the Star Wars Universe that can easily be ignored at will, the entire prequel trilogy was basically an unneeded backstory that hurt rather than bolstered the originals.
Also, the Godfather III comparison doesn't work at all because by selling Star Wars to Disney, Lucas both relinquished control of Star Wars and gave his tacit consent to others expanding on what he did.
-
[QUOTE=Ilan Preskovsky;4743013]I love both American Graphitti and Star Wars. I think he's an incredible visionary who radically transformed American cinema.[/quote]
Good, just leave it at that then. Lucas doesn't owe you anything more than he already delivered. To paraphrase what Neil Gaiman said about another George, Lucas is not your b--ch, for you to disrespect and malign as you please.
[quote] This doesn't change that he hadn't directed a film between Star Wars and the Phantom Menace...[/quote]
Which is a fair enough point and arguable to an extent.
[quote]That doesn't take away his earlier achievements but whether he had gotten rusty or cinema had moved past him. [/quote]
Considering that the prequels were trailblazers in technical skill and inspired huge bunch of movies in terms of digital cinema, CGI, digital editing, and other workflow related processes, the evidence is decidedly against the movies being "rusty".
[quote]The prequels were complete stiffs that had none of the swashbuckling, playful sense of fun that the originals had.[/quote]
The prequels by their very nature had to tell the story of why the Jedi were reduced to two hobos living in the wild at the start of ANH, they had to tell you how the Empire overcame the Republic, and they had to tell you how Anakin went dark. That was the inherent implicit premise of the entire project. By their nature they just could never have had the "swashbuckling, playful sense of fun that the originals" had. It's a story that was always going to have to end badly. It had to get darker and darker and then go into a really bleak place. [I]Revenge of the Sith[/I] is the first Star Wars movie to be rated PG-13, which is the rating all the Disney SW movies have. Fundamentally, ROTS is the true ancestor of those movies which are a good deal more violent, intense, and somber than the OT.
And even then, Lucas did give many swashbuckling moments in the prequels...the pod-race, the chase over Coruscant at the start of AOTC, the opening battle at the start of Revenge of the Sith which is the greatest space battle of the movies. Likewise, the prequels have the best lightsaber duels of all the movies -- Duel of the Fates, and Anakin and Obi-Wan at Mustafar.
[quote] They had almost no memorable original characters [/quote]
Jar Jar Binks IS memorable, he's a household name around the world, his speech patterns are known by everyone and so on. That much is inarguable. Mace Windu with Samuel Jackson's purple lightsaber is also memorable, as is Darth freaking Maul who just won't stay dead.
[quote]and spent way too much time with somber Jedis somberly overexplaining everything to each other. [/quote]
The premise of the story is about the Jedi Order. It had to show why they failed and got decimated to just Obi-Wan and Yoda, it had to show how they went from being so powerful and respected to a myth spoken about in hushed whispers, it had to shy why they failed in stopping the rise of the Empire and why they failed Anakin. Before the trailer of TPM arrived.
[quote]And nothing that the sequels have done have hurt Star Wars as much as turning Darth Vader into a whiny, thoroughly punchable brat. [/quote]
Turning a figure adulated by fanboys as a macho a--hole who bosses and tortures and bullies people around and demolishing him by showing him as a petty brat is in fact a highly progressive action. It made Darth Vader into a vulnerable down-to-earth and relatable figure that a wider variety of people could relate to. Kylo Ren is very much in the cloth of Christensen's Anakin rather than the original Vader.
Go back and watch the Original Trilogy. Darth Vader f--king fails every single thing that he does.
-- He fails to retrieve the stolen blueprints.
-- He fails to get the information out of Leia by torturing her.
-- His "plan" on chasing the rebels to their hideout for an instakill via Death Star fails completely and compromises their defenses.
-- He fails to stop the rebels from evacuating Hoth with the bulk of his fleet.
-- He fails to convert Luke to the Dark Side and pull off his shadow-coup which was his "plan".
-- His one success, capturing Han Solo, gets undone because his terrible handling of Cloud City drives a neutral city into the hands of the Rebellion, and they get a pilot like Lando to replace the decommissioned Han.
Vader was a f--k up. Lucas knew that, and he kept telling people that Vader was never meant to be the ultimate embodiment of evil. Vader is the guy who goes around the corner and gets cigarettes for Satan. Anakin is absolutely consistent to the Vader of the OT.
[quote]Also, the Godfather III comparison doesn't work at all because by selling Star Wars to Disney, Lucas both relinquished control of Star Wars and gave his tacit consent to others expanding on what he did.[/QUOTE]
Coppola doesn't own The Godfather license or IP, he has no control over how Paramount/Gulf+Western/Viacom handles it. Like they put out that Godfather video game years back without his permission. Technically speaking, Viacom can hire another director to do a remake or expand the story and characters.
So the situation isn't all that different.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4742307]Most people expected a hit before its release, because a Star Wars movie failing at the box-office was unthinkable. It literally never happened before. [/QUOTE]
First time for everything.
[QUOTE]
The prequels featured Obi-Wan and Anakin Skywalker with entirely new actors than the OT, and those movies were commercially very successful and sold on the Star Wars name. Especially since it featured actors who were relatively unknown...Ewan McGregor was known for some English movies he made but Star Wars was his first blockbuster. Certainly a much smaller profile than Alec Guinness (multi-Oscar winner and nominee) had when he played Obi-Wan.
In other words, the Han who shot first, the guy in the Cantina scene. Which is considered by a lot of Star Wars fans to be the "coolest" version of Han.
[/QUOTE]
The thing is, we saw what the "Han who shot first" was like earlier in the original trilogy. We didn't need a Han Solo movie because we already knew what he was like before Luke and Leia. By contrast, the Clone Wars and who Anakin was before he became Vader was something you didn't get a full explanation of in the OT. You could justify making a movie trilogy, not to mention a six-season t.v. series about the rise of the empire and Anakin's fall from grace. I'm not sure what more you needed to know about Han Solo that would have made for an interesting movie.
-
I really enjoyed SOLO. Of course it wasn't going to reveal anything about his character that we haven't known, but it was fun to see Han still trying to balance his initial youth and optimism with his increasing experience. And how there was something of his idealism to rediscover when he met Luke and Leia.
