Re: Star Wars
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:28 am
Yeah, I'm sure no one else here has ever held an opinion they knew wasn't the most popular stance but nonetheless strongly stood by it -- especially being film buffs. :^o
https://test.criterionforum.org/forum/
You can't be serious. Star Wars, from its very conception, is an exploitation of childhood nostalgia for pulp novels, serials, and cliffhangers. Just like Indiana Jones. The series is not built on integrity or purity--it is a pastiche of warm, cozy memories. Why are you mythologizing a handful of pulpy adventure films? They may be very fun, even masterful at times, but they are pulpy mass-entertainment that mine the nostalgias. And so it is with Abram's film.MoonlitKnight wrote:No, I was making an argument based on maintaining the integrity of the series, and, more significantly, the vision of its creator; not for exploiting people's love of nostalgia (i.e. the 'sugar-high'), which is becoming an increasingly troubling trend in Hollywood.
They may have started off that way, but, in the years after the OT - and especially when the PT came to be - I would argue that the SW universe has evolved into something closer to Tolkien's universe (though still maintaining that old-time serial framework). Clearly that doesn't hold as much interest to most people as it does to me. Again, I'm aware I'm in the minority on this issue, but I'm sure as hell not going to back down from it just because that's the case. Ultimately, in my mind, the prequels and TFA have essentially the opposite problem -- and it boils down to conceptualization (where the prequels win) vs. execution (where TFA wins... though I feel this aspect is kind of irrelevant if the conceptualization is lousy, but that's just me :-" ).Mr Sausage wrote:Star Wars, from its very conception, is an exploitation of childhood nostalgia for pulp novels, serials, and cliffhangers. Just like Indiana Jones. The series is not built on integrity or purity--it is a pastiche of warm, cozy memories. Why are you mythologizing a handful of pulpy adventure films? They may be very fun, even masterful at times, but they are pulpy mass-entertainment that mine the nostalgias. And so it is with Abram's film.
And to clarify, by first swo means the Phantom Menaceswo17 wrote:I consider all Star Wars films after the first one to be non-canonical, and even that one's pushing it.
Well, no, the first three Star Wars movies will always be pastiches of pulp sci-fi and serials; that'll never stop being true. And Tolkien's universe is just a pastiche of Mediaeval Germanic Romance. Granted, its nostalgia was always going to be limited to a few Oxford dons; but nostalgia's still where it comes from: childhood nights in front of a fire reading stories of knights and dragons. And Tolkien reproduces his sources with total sincerity.MoonlitKnight wrote:They may have started off that way, but, in the years after the OT - and especially when the PT came to be - I would argue that the SW universe has evolved into something closer to Tolkien's universe (though still maintaining that old-time serial framework). Clearly that doesn't hold as much interest to most people as it does to me. Again, I'm aware I'm in the minority on this issue, but I'm sure as hell not going to back down from it just because that's the case. Ultimately, in my mind, the prequels and TFA have essentially the opposite problem -- and it boils down to conceptualization (where the prequels win) vs. execution (where TFA wins... though I feel this aspect is kind of irrelevant if the conceptualization is lousy, but that's just me :-" ).Mr Sausage wrote:Star Wars, from its very conception, is an exploitation of childhood nostalgia for pulp novels, serials, and cliffhangers. Just like Indiana Jones. The series is not built on integrity or purity--it is a pastiche of warm, cozy memories. Why are you mythologizing a handful of pulpy adventure films? They may be very fun, even masterful at times, but they are pulpy mass-entertainment that mine the nostalgias. And so it is with Abram's film.
Succinct. This is a perfect example of why I thought The Force Awakens worked. It knows exactly what it is and it goes with it. It has no pretense.Mr Sausage wrote:I'll take The Force Awakens and its cheerful understanding of its own limits over the pretense and insularity of the prequels. Abram's film, surprisingly enough, is the only one that didn't just go up its own ass.
It's repetitions were also just interesting in a reversal of those restrictions the prequels made that you reference. Making literal the Obi-wan/ Vader relationship with Han and Kylo Ren (even having Ren's name be Ben) was such a smart move that worked very well on the emotional and tension level while giving some good intellectual wonk for people invested in that sort of thing. The repetition of the bar scene from the first film is the perfect example of Abrams expanding the world where Lucas began to close it off. On a narrative level you can see where a lot of the same things are occurring like with Fin running off, but it also shows that the galaxy has all of these immense crevices we know nothing about. Basically it is just fun.Mr Sausage wrote: I'll take The Force Awakens and its cheerful understanding of its own limits over the pretense and insularity of the prequels. Abram's film, surprisingly enough, is the only one that didn't just go up its own ass.
You're absolutely right. Star Wars has supplanted pulps and serials as the childhood remembrance. It's its own nostalgia. But I do like that it was affection and pleasure that sent The Force Awakens back to the original movies. Lucas seemed to be treating Star Wars as a brand. Whatever made him bring back so many of the original characters, it certainly wasn't affection.knivces wrote:I do want to add that I think Abram's film is less about the nostalgia of pulp than the nostalgia of Star Wars itself since the quotations are no longer Buck Rogers or Riefenstahl, but about the original trilogy itself.
So the problem with the prequels was Lucas, lol. Okay...MoonlitKnight wrote:To my dying day I'll maintain that if the prequels had a more skilled screenwriter adapting Lucas' general storyline - and perhaps a more actor-friendly director - they would've been held in almost as high a regard as the OT and ------I'm sorry, like most people, you succumbed to certain preconceptions about the prequels that turned out to not be true. ----Most of the 'lore' problems in the prequels are petty shit from people taking certain lines from the OT literally, such as Yoda being Obi-Wan's sole trainer and Leia having memories of her mother.---TFA has numerous problems involving not only Rey being able to do tons of Jedi shit almost immediately, but also the returning OT heroes making choicest that just don't ring true to their OT character arcs...
A more detailed airing of my TFA grievances:bearcuborg wrote:As for the TFA, the core three are very true to their characters. Your replies are as poorly explained as is your attempt to dis Rogue One.
Still way better than Return of the Jedi.HJackson wrote:He's not wrong though.
True. After all it IS rather depressing to see a hack like Abrams who in the same way recycled Star Trek (though there was the additional effect of dumbing it down which can't happen with Star Wars) being successful and even more puzzling, being praised by critics.HJackson wrote:He's not wrong though.
Totally bankrupt in the originality departmentMoonlitKnight wrote: A more detailed airing of my TFA grievances
Lucas has never directed an action scene as exciting as any of the major set pieces in The Force Awakens, especially that one long take sequence half-way in. I'd be tempted to attribute that to different times, styles, available techniques, ect., but then there's Raiders, whose action scenes remain ten times as astonishing and thrilling as any blockbuster action scene created in the last ten years. Unlike Spielberg, Lucas just isn't much of an action director. He did fine, but the best action scene he ever directed was the anti-car chase in THX 1138, and that's precisely because it isn't traditionally exciting. And of course he proceeded to ruin it in the special edition.hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Abrams doesn’t do it anywhere near as well as his idols did.
Agreeing with your general point, but rewatching the original Star Wars I found the climactic assault on the first Death Star to be as astonishing and exciting as anything in Raiders or Force Awakens. (Not really innovative, though.)Mr Sausage wrote: Sun May 27, 2018 3:06 am What's innovative about Lucas' style? His action adventure set-pieces for example use classical film grammar. It's all pretty traditional. His images are indelible, that I will admit; but their construction and style isn't original. I'll admit his influence, but I think you're over-estimating his originality.
The assembly and construction of the modern blockbuster owes more to Michael Bay at this point than Lucas. Bay's careening, movement-oriented, montage action style is the de facto action style of the blockbuster. You can see it especially in the Marvel movies, all of which have the same action style. Bay has had more influence on the actual filmmaking style of modern-day blockbuster directors than about anyone.
Lucas has never directed an action scene as exciting as any of the major set pieces in The Force Awakens, especially that one long take sequence half-way in. I'd be tempted to attribute that to different times, styles, available techniques, ect., but then there's Raiders, whose action scenes remain ten times as astonishing and thrilling as any blockbuster action scene created in the last ten years. Unlike Spielberg, Lucas just isn't much of an action director. He did fine, but the best action scene he ever directed was the anti-car chase in THX 1138, and that's precisely because it isn't traditionally exciting. And of course he proceeded to ruin it in the special edition.hanshotfirst1138 wrote:Abrams doesn’t do it anywhere near as well as his idols did.