The Official Star Wars Thread

ok, just to clarify my feelings. i know these are just movies. however, i do consider them art. i also think that the reason "art" is either hit or miss is the right people, the right time, the right place. i don't think you should go back to "fix" what wasn't broken(just my opinion again).

something i would compare this to, in the modern day, would be the rock band guns n roses. i loved guns n roses growing up. great rock and roll. then, axl rose got the rights to the band, and he was the only one left in it. he's bad-mouthed his former band mates. threatened to go back and re-do old albums with, in his words, better "musicians". he has ruined for me what was once a great form of art in music. and no, i haven't even listened to the "chinese democracy".

i'm not saying "artists"(as i see them), don't have the right to make new material(good or bad), however, i think they should leave they're old material alone. how many of you would like stephen king to "rewrite" one of his older books, so that he could make it "better". i know that none of these things i'm talking about(music, movies, books) are works of art like the mona lisa, but just like the mona lisa, i think it is perfect the way it is. it doesn't need "fixed". that's just my opinion as a fan.

You mean, like 1978's The Stand, which King rewrote in 1990, to, in my opinion, awesome effect, especially when taken into consideration of how BOTH versions fit in The Dark Tower continuity?

Nobody will read this, but speaking of the Dark Tower, King rewrote book one a few years ago, too, because he felt the writing in it was no longer up to par.

bret_owen99 wrote:

ok, just to clarify my feelings. i know these are just movies. however, i do consider them art. i also think that the reason "art" is either hit or miss is the right people, the right time, the right place. i don't think you should go back to "fix" what wasn't broken(just my opinion again).

something i would compare this to, in the modern day, would be the rock band guns n roses. i loved guns n roses growing up. great rock and roll. then, axl rose got the rights to the band, and he was the only one left in it. he's bad-mouthed his former band mates. threatened to go back and re-do old albums with, in his words, better "musicians". he has ruined for me what was once a great form of art in music. and no, i haven't even listened to the "chinese democracy".

i'm not saying "artists"(as i see them), don't have the right to make new material(good or bad), however, i think they should leave they're old material alone. how many of you would like stephen king to "rewrite" one of his older books, so that he could make it "better". i know that none of these things i'm talking about(music, movies, books) are works of art like the mona lisa, but just like the mona lisa, i think it is perfect the way it is. it doesn't need "fixed". that's just my opinion as a fan.

Being a writer myself, I can definitely see where you are coming from with this, and I will admit that I agree with your opinion. However, sometimes, a writer must "rewrite" an older work to make it better depending on the situation. If it becomes part of something else, and the continuity doesn't add up, then a rewrite may be necessary to make it fit better.

However, in the case of Star Wars, excluding Return of the Jedi (which I feel should not have been changed like it was), Empire was pretty much left unchanged. As for Star Wars (the original), what was originally released was great, and it worked, but the "Special Edition" remake actually is the way it was originally written. Certain scenes were omitted from the original cut mostly because of special effects issues that kept them from being able to complete the scene as desired.

The movies weren't broken per se, but at the same as an artist, you also want to be able to see you work as you envision it. Imagine a painter who did a painting with a piece missing because the color he wanted to use didn't exist, but later on that color became available. Would you want the artist to complete the painting the way he envisioned it originally, or just leave it blank and incomplete because it is now "old art" and therefore should not be touched? In my opinion, I would want to see the completed work, rather than the incomplete version.

good point artanyus. however, i give you this food for thought. while you see a painting missing paint, what if the rest of the world saw a masterpiece? what if that missing piece/paint, is what made that painting famous? and if by bringing back the dead artist, and finishing what he never did, it becomes less famous, less impactfull. i'm all for owner's properties, however, i think after something becomes so famous, it should be left alone. however, with the recent view of hollywood "remaking" every famous movie, i know i am in the minority. every "remake" is a joke. tons of money poured into actors and sfx, that doesn't even come close to how great the original movies were with no sfx, and no-name actors. you see a painting missing something, i see a work of art captured by time and neccisity. just because something is missing(paint/sfx), doesn't mean it's not good. maybe that's what made it so popular in the first place.

Quote :

good point artanyus. however, i give you this food for thought. while you see a painting missing paint, what if the rest of the world saw a masterpiece? what if that missing piece/paint, is what made that painting famous? and if by bringing back the dead artist, and finishing what he never did, it becomes less famous, less impactfull. i'm all for owner's properties, however, i think after something becomes so famous, it should be left alone.

It's not that I see a "painting missing paint" as a viewer, but I being an artist as well, I see both sides of the coin.

In this regard, I would not say revive a dead artist just to make their stuff better. If the artist has passed on, just let the art be. There is nothing we can do for it. For all we know the art was obscure to begin with and only with the artists death did they become famous. (Just one of many possible scenarios regarding that). Also, if the painting became famous for the reasons you stated, and the artist is still alive, I'm sure he wouldn't want to change it, but if he did decide he wanted to change/complete it, that is up to him.

Look at the Mona Lisa. Sure it's a masterpiece, and marvelous, and shouldn't be changed at all, but if you look underneath what we see, there are several versions that were painted over. It was Da Vinci's choice to paint over those previous versions in an effort to perfect the masterpiece. Once it was done, he let it be, and that is the way it should be.

Artists are nit picky, we strive for perfection, and though we don't always succeed, we do our best to get as close to that as possible.

bret_owen99 wrote:

however, with the recent view of hollywood "remaking" every famous movie, i know i am in the minority. every "remake" is a joke. tons of money poured into actors and sfx, that doesn't even come close to how great the original movies were with no sfx, and no-name actors.

In regards to this, I cannot agree with you more. The whole "remake" fad has gone a little too far. There are a ton of movies that were made that should not have had remakes done. They were masterpieces themselves, and most movies they remade they ruined by "modernizing them". However, there have been a few (and that's a very small number) movie remakes that were better than the originals. Does it mean the original wasn't good, not necessarily, but it just means they did something different and that made a world of difference, which in turn made the new version really great.

When one door closes another door opens. At least as far as dvds are concerned with me. I had to sell my small DW dvd collection today, but I managed to buy very cheaply SW The Phantom Menace. I don't have any of the SW films so this is a treat and even though this one gets dismissed left and right it has one of my favorite villains - Darth Maul.

Funny, I have a whole lot of Darth Maul stuff. I keep wanting to put it up on ebay, but never think anyone wants them.

i remember a two pack doll set they had at toys r us i wish i had picked up. it had darth vader (with removable helmet and hand) and darth maul (which you could actually take apart in half, like at the end of the movie). still wish i had gotten that, it was only 30 dollars.

I have that darth maul thaty pops in half from a set with young kenobi

Hoosier Whovian wrote:

I have that darth maul thaty pops in half from a set with young kenobi

I actually saw the set you mention on eBay a couple of weeks ago for the first time. I thought it was soooo funny and it reminded me of the Jango Fett figure with removable head. Apparently the head was held in place by a magnet. As far as Darth Maul is concerned, I just love him to "pieces" and I definitely wish he got more screen time.

BTW when I bought my SW movie today I almost bought a stormtrooper figure as well. I had to talk myself out of it and it wasn't easy. Be funny if I stopped collecting the DW figures entirely and wound up falling into collecting SW figures instead. Perhaps not too funny to my wallet, but still it would be funny to me though.

artanyus wrote:

Look at the Mona Lisa. Sure it's a masterpiece, and marvelous, and shouldn't be changed at all, but if you look underneath what we see, there are several versions that were painted over. It was Da Vinci's choice to paint over those previous versions in an effort to perfect the masterpiece. Once it was done, he let it be, and that is the way it should be.

Artists are nit picky, we strive for perfection, and though we don't always succeed, we do our best to get as close to that as possible.

Exactly. As an illustrator, I often go through several steps when creating each piece before I'm fairly satisfied. I reserve the right to tinker until I'm content, and even go back and re-draw an older piece. That doesn't mean the original goes away, it just means I've supplanted it with something new and, hopefully, better.

artanyus wrote:

In regards to this, I cannot agree with you more. The whole "remake" fad has gone a little too far. There are a ton of movies that were made that should not have had remakes done. They were masterpieces themselves, and most movies they remade they ruined by "modernizing them".

Agreed. The "Elm Street" remake was a hollow, lifeless exercise that was devoid of the suspense, atmosphere, and charm of the original. Other remakes have been as bad or worse: "The Haunting", "Psycho", "Last House on the Left", "Halloween" and so on. A remake should only be done if the new creator is taking the seed of the original and doing something truly interesting with it. Unfortunately, that's rarely what happens.

artanyus wrote:

However, there have been a few (and that's a very small number) movie remakes that were better than the originals. Does it mean the original wasn't good, not necessarily, but it just means they did something different and that made a world of difference, which in turn made the new version really great.

Indeed. John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing" is a tremendous achievement in effects and in terse, paranoid storytelling, and the only real resemblance between it and the original is the locale and the fact that there's a hostile alien in their midst. The recent remake of "Dawn of the Dead" from a few years back is also a superb film, preserving only two real elements of the original: Zombies, and a shopping mall. After that, its its own entity, and a very good film in its own right. And keep in mind that Sam Rami's "Evil Dead" is a story that is retold in "Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn", and re-told yet again (as a prologue) in "Army of Darkness". While not strictly remakes per-say, they certainly come close to being that, all while serving as sequels as well.

So yes, the remake craze is out of control, and its very annoying most of the time. However, there is one positive, even when bad remakes surface. They often draw renewed attention to the original versions, and that's a good thing.

^o^CORVUS^o^ wrote:

And keep in mind that Sam Rami's "Evil Dead" is a story that is retold in "Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn", and re-told yet again (as a prologue) in "Army of Darkness". While not strictly remakes per-say, they certainly come close to being that, all while serving as sequels as well.

The thing with the "Evil Dead" series of movies, is that after the first and second movie was made, and released, they wound up selling the rights to the movie, and when they decided to make a sequel they couldn't buy the rights back, so in order to make the sequel they had to make some changes to the story from the previous movie. Not the brightest thing to do I know, but it was either make changes or not make a sequel. They just didn't know the movies would become as popular as they did at the time. And of course, they just got more comic as they progressed as a result.

Out of the prequel trilogy, I'd have to say that revenge of the sith was my favorite, though I liked the Phantom menace almost as much, attack of the clones was good too, but I like the other two movies better. although there were some good scenes in episode II.

artanyus wrote:

The thing with the "Evil Dead" series of movies, is that after the first and second movie was made, and released, they wound up selling the rights to the movie, and when they decided to make a sequel they couldn't buy the rights back, so in order to make the sequel they had to make some changes to the story from the previous movie.

Oh I know about the rights issues, however the overall effect on-screen, regardless of the off-screen reasons for it, is that the story is retold differently each time.

artanyus wrote:

Not the brightest thing to do I know

Actually I like the retellings, because to me its almost like a big fish story, one which changes a bit each time its told. I think it adds an interesting aspect to the whole series.

========================================
...^o^CORVUS^o^
Doctor Who: The Winds of Time

Anyone going to Celebration V in Orlando next month?

I wish. I might make it to the Star Wars weekends in Anaheim next year.

I finally managed to buy all of the SW movies today. It's amazing what one can do when not buying DW figures. I just finished watching ANH tonight and I have a question about the stormtroopers. Are the stormtroopers the Jango Fett clones from episodes 2-3? Are they a mix now of clones and new soldiers? I was thinking at one point that they may not be clones at all because the voices aren't the same. Perhaps at this point they've all died out but then if this is the case why not make new ones?

jfh1970 wrote:

I finally managed to buy all of the SW movies today. It's amazing what one can do when not buying DW figures. I just finished watching ANH tonight and I have a question about the stormtroopers. Are the stormtroopers the Jango Fett clones from episodes 2-3? Are they a mix now of clones and new soldiers? I was thinking at one point that they may not be clones at all because the voices aren't the same. Perhaps at this point they've all died out but then if this is the case why not make new ones?

By the time we get to ANH, the clones have been mostly replaced by other humans. The reason being is that the Emperor realized that while the clones make great loyal soldiers, but they also could have a fail safe that could be programmed in to make them loyal to someone else. The Kaminoans used a batch of clones to defend their planet against invasion when the Emperor wanted to conquer the planet. It was then that he realized he needed another source for soldiers, and thus began recruiting for the Imperial Academy.

artanyus wrote:

By the time we get to ANH, the clones have been mostly replaced by other humans. The reason being is that the Emperor realized that while the clones make great loyal soldiers, but they also could have a fail safe that could be programmed in to make them loyal to someone else. The Kaminoans used a batch of clones to defend their planet against invasion when the Emperor wanted to conquer the planet. It was then that he realized he needed another source for soldiers, and thus began recruiting for the Imperial Academy.

Is this revealed in the expanded universe? What book? Curious.

I seem to recall that Han Solo was an Imperial Academy dropout.

Calixar wrote:

I seem to recall that Han Solo was an Imperial Academy dropout.

Han Solo was an Imperial Academy drop out. Though that was because he rescued Chewbacca and then they had to run because if he got caught he would have been killed and Chewie enslaved once more.

jfh1970 wrote:

artanyus wrote:

By the time we get to ANH, the clones have been mostly replaced by other humans. The reason being is that the Emperor realized that while the clones make great loyal soldiers, but they also could have a fail safe that could be programmed in to make them loyal to someone else. The Kaminoans used a batch of clones to defend their planet against invasion when the Emperor wanted to conquer the planet. It was then that he realized he needed another source for soldiers, and thus began recruiting for the Imperial Academy.

Is this revealed in the expanded universe? What book? Curious.

It was revealed in the Expanded Universe. I wish I could tell you which books it was revealed in, but there were several and I can't remember which ones they were.

Finally finished watching all six SW episodes and I'm a little sad. I haven't done this in about four years. Okay so I have another question and it's related to Obi Wan. What exactly was the deal with him after Vader struck him down? There was no body he just vanished into thin air. Did Obi Wan just will himself into the Force or was he using the Force to continue his existence because he had died way before Luke came across him?

I think it's the former. What do you think?

my take was that he "died", but sort of like the time lords in the end of time, he left his corporeal form, and became pure though, in effect, part of the force. of course, i'm sure george lucas might tell me something differently, but i think each person should walk away with what they feel happened to him.

thought, not though. forgot the t, sorry.