I just think we're talking about different things with Aragorn.
Ewoks are not that bad, and Boba Fett is not an interesting character
- Thread starter JirinPanthosa
- Start date
I just think we're talking about different things with Aragorn.
To my mind, he is unimportant, and the fan response has made him less interesting for me.
Possibly irrational, but that's where I am.
We are, but that's not the topic of the thread, and I don't think necessary to continue down.
I think that's why he's interesting, and a nice example of how good the writing was in ESB.
You could say the same with Piett. He's pretty unimportant and doesn't really do anything another Imperial officer couldn't, but he was acted so well that he felt like a more interesting and human character than other officers. There was a depth to him that made the film so much richer, and they ended up using him again in ROTJ because of completely organic fan response. Apparently Lucas put him in because they received lots of fan mail about his character.
I think what you say about the fan response is probably true for most people who apparently dislike Boba Fett, but it's a shame for that to dimish how well his character was presented in ESB and, to a lesser extent, in ROTJ.
That's a fair observation. I'll add this piece from my own point of view. I think Fett in the original ESB was well presented, and acted quite well. I think Jeremy Bulloch did a great job, and the presence of Fett is clearly felt, as his popularity demonstrates.
However, I can respect the presentation and the subtlety all day long but that doesn't engage me. He engages me in a highly technical level. But, the emotional piece is not there for me.
Honestly, the only thing that truly annoys me about Star Wars is that we can't get the unspecialized versions on DVD or Blu-Ray.
At the risk of sounding highly dismissive, unfortunately, that is not Lucas' vision. And, I like to respect the creator's vision, as much as I disagree with it.
Well, I'm sure this has been mentioned hundreds of times on this forum, but Lucas wasn't the only creator. Suffice to say I disagree with you on that one. Probably no need to go through this whole thing again since I'm sure it's been discussed to death.
Aside from the creator thing, what I will say is I've always felt there's maybe something a touch mean-spirited about his decision. Lucas seems bitter that many people reacted negatively to the prequels and special editions. While some fans did go too far, it's always seemed to me that Lucas was mostly angered that people didn't get his vision, and he started blaming the fans instead of admitting they might sometimes be right.
In any case, I've always had the impression focusing on the special editions is partially a kind of payback against fans of the OT. If the prequels had been as well-received as the originals and people had loved all his special edition additions, I think he might have been more inclined to rerelease the theatrical cuts. As it is, he can tell the fans it's his way or the highway. Call me paranoid, but that's just the sense I get.
Last edited:
I won't call you paranoid since I certainly can appreciate that point of view. I don't agree with it, same as that I don't agree on the creator part. And, briefly, if he is not the sole creator then I would appreciate seeing blame being handed around equally. This isn't directed at you specifically, but Lucas has been the responsible party for Star Wars for many years now. See "People vs. George Lucas" in particular.
Here is my point of view on the OT, and why I don't think George wanted to release it. Now, I'll preface it with my own insecurities regarding creative works, and criticism. I never think anything is good enough. Whenever I got an "A" on a paper, even in graduate school, I was upset because I knew there was a mistake in it.
Now, having listened to Lucas when he first released the Special Edition, he had a line that stuck out to me: he regarded Star Wars as "unfinished" and the SE was his efforts to correct the mistakes he saw within the original work. I don't think it's mean spirited as much as it is an embarrassment and a negative view of the "mistakes" he still sees.
Now, I have no way of verifying this, so your interpretation is as valid as mine. But, that's how I have always read it.
And sometimes Lucas would add something in, but later be confronted with it as a bad idea that changed the context of the scene, and he would change it back. See Luke screaming as he fell in the Empire Strikes Back during one of the video releases of the Special Edition. Mark Hamill pointed out that the scene context would have Luke falling in defiance, and wouldn't be yelling like the Emperor during his fall. Thus when the next release of the film came on disc, that was reverted to its original music and sound effects only form.
Thing is, I just don't believe him. Same with the Ewoks. Did he want to show a less advanced culture taking on the Empire? Sure, but I still think a big part of the decision was for kid (and toy) appeal, a suggestion people who worked on the OT have made themselves.
It's actually kinda interesting to compare Boba Fett against the Ewoks in that regard. Boba Fett wasn't designed to be some huge breakout character, but it happened organically and he became hugely popular. He certainly seems better represented in the EU. The Ewoks seem like a more direct attempt to create popular, kid-friendly characters, much like Jar Jar in TPM, but they became one of the most notoriously disliked parts of the entire OT.
So with the special editoins, I'm sure he partly wanted to fix mistakes, but few changes actually did that. Just look at the later changes. They're mostly an attempt to forge a link between the OT and PT. Again, I don't mind that the special editions exist, but I think it's a harsh and perhaps vengeful move on Lucas' part to pretend the original cuts don't exist. Interviews clearly show how bitter he gets, so I think he's just decided to screw the people who didn't like his changes. Again, it's a 'my way or the highway' approach.
Last edited:
I haven't argued otherwise. My only point is that the Ewoks work as an extension of the theme from ANH onward. The success of it will vary from individual to individual.
Which doesn't make them bad in the context of the film. Just because they are kid friendly and people reacted against them (to the point of hyperbole, in my opinion). But, within the film, I think the Ewoks are OK. Not good, not bad, but they are OK.
I certainly don't think they are Jar Jar bad. Jar Jar's usefulness is questionable, at best, while the Ewoks are demonstrated to be quite capable from the get-go.
The difference between our points of view is assigning malice to his intent. I don't think it's maliciousness, but personal protection against more pain. It's not like the OT happened without great personal sacrifice and pain on Lucas' part, including his marriage. Why would he want to revisit a film that was very painful and he felt was full of mistakes?
I find it difficult to believe these are kid films. Torture scenes, missing limbs, political turmoil, classical motifs that are inaccessible to kids, and full adults buying action figures. The movies had kid elements, probably to make Star Wars accessible, marketable to a younger generation, and like Joe Camel, get them while they are young, so they become those adults, in twenty years, trampling each other in department stores for the coolest toys and posting on message boards about full adults and their trampling. Laughing all the way to the bank. You can't bring along Campbell, classical archetypes for heroes dating to the Greeks, and say their kid films. Jar-Jar is Joe Camel.
Wesley Crusher, in my house, was newly sliced bread in a series that spoke about lies of omission (I remember commission being bantered in the house when omission was mentioned) and now is reviled as the worst character outside of Voyager. At least Star Trek is honest about using Chekov, a character who looked like the Monkees, to appeal to a younger generation.
It's such an obvious ploy and he tried to refer to Buck Rogers, again, with Campbell playing in the background. You want all people to see these movies. Give them less to do (a half-hour of C3PO or R2 needed to stop). The kids will be impressed no matter if Ilsa of Star Wars has 3 lines or 30.
Edit: And, at twelve, because of Wesley Crusher when I was seven, I was doing the trial and Enterprise scene from VI verbatim, asking for Shakespeare books for Easter, reading them (Julius Caesar was my favorite), borrowing them from friends (meaning they had them to borrow) and discussing what I read (at 13).
Jar-Jar, at fifteen, offended me. Only thinking Lucas a god of movies, kept me from criticism. I bought Darth Maul and a Droid, in high school (I was near the end of freshman year when the movie was released). We read "Romeo and Juliet" in High School, and I was a bit player, the winter before TPM release, in "A Mid Summer Night's Dream." I had a crush on Demi Moore and Britney Spears. Star Wars was apart of my diet and I never could stand him. So, take some child psychology before you introduce a player that would appeal to kids, and reference 12-year-olds.
Wesley Crusher, in my house, was newly sliced bread in a series that spoke about lies of omission (I remember commission being bantered in the house when omission was mentioned) and now is reviled as the worst character outside of Voyager. At least Star Trek is honest about using Chekov, a character who looked like the Monkees, to appeal to a younger generation.
It's such an obvious ploy and he tried to refer to Buck Rogers, again, with Campbell playing in the background. You want all people to see these movies. Give them less to do (a half-hour of C3PO or R2 needed to stop). The kids will be impressed no matter if Ilsa of Star Wars has 3 lines or 30.
Edit: And, at twelve, because of Wesley Crusher when I was seven, I was doing the trial and Enterprise scene from VI verbatim, asking for Shakespeare books for Easter, reading them (Julius Caesar was my favorite), borrowing them from friends (meaning they had them to borrow) and discussing what I read (at 13).
Jar-Jar, at fifteen, offended me. Only thinking Lucas a god of movies, kept me from criticism. I bought Darth Maul and a Droid, in high school (I was near the end of freshman year when the movie was released). We read "Romeo and Juliet" in High School, and I was a bit player, the winter before TPM release, in "A Mid Summer Night's Dream." I had a crush on Demi Moore and Britney Spears. Star Wars was apart of my diet and I never could stand him. So, take some child psychology before you introduce a player that would appeal to kids, and reference 12-year-olds.
Last edited:
I agree, but I suppose that's my issue. ROTJ has some absoluely fantastic scenes, but it definitely feels like the weakest of the OT, and a big part of that is down to tone. The Ewoks were the main offenders when it came to making things more comedic and lighthearted, which for me is a big problem since it trivializes the fight against the Empire. They might continue the theme of an ill-equipped force taking on a mighty military organization, but I think that's only part of the theme. What made it resonate was a sense of enormous sacrifice and desperate struggle on the part of the Rebellion, a theme that's directly reflected in Luke's confrontation with Vader and the Emperor. The Ewoks aren't threatened by the Empire, so there aren't really any stakes for them, and they don't seem to remotely struggle against the imperial troops - it seems more like a bit of fun for them. You even see that with Han and Leia, who really don't react as if their delay destroying the shield generator is costing Rebel lives.
I'd say that's less because the Ewoks were kid-friendly than because they were kid-focused (I know 'kid-friendly' was my original description, so my bad there). The movies were always kid-friendly in the same way Indiana Jones is kid-friendly, but actually making something that seems so geared towards kids is entirely different. I think this is where Lucas went wrong comparing Jar Jar and the Ewoks to Yoda and the droids.
So, yes, the Ewoks are okay. But they're okay in a film that could have been so much more than it ended up being.
Last edited:
Not to clip out parts but I think you put it quite well. As I was thinking on this topic (I think way too long and hard about these things
) it made me stop and think about how I would improve ROTJ. And, I realized, that ROTJ would be better served in one of two ways: One, make the Ewoks Wookies. The only trouble with this is the relationship with Chewbacca. Does Chewbacca have to serve in the 3PO role and negotiate their assistance, either due to Wookie reluctance due to being beaten down, or fear of reprisal from the Empire?If not Wookies, due to cost, or other factors, then what about making the Ewoks suffer in some way. Either they are being used as slave labor (odd, I know, but considering they can carry a full human on a pole, so maybe?) or they are being threatened in some other way. I mean, it could be deforestation, destruction of habitat, target practice or something. Have the Empire threaten them in some way. But, it takes the Rebels being willing to make the sacrifice and slaughter some of the Imperials to demonstrate the possibility that the Empire can be beaten.
This is just idle speculation, but I don't want to give the impression that the Ewoks are flawless because they are not. They are, however, fitting for the theme, but could take a bit of adjusting to fit more.
They really had no choice but to change his voice once they introduced Jango Fett and revealed Boba was a perfect Clone of him. I actually really liked the fact that they changed his voice, and replaced the original woman/chimp Emperor with Ian McDiarmid. It helped to make the Original Trilogy, and Prequels actually feel like they were all one series.
Fett was a hero. The Ewoks are the things we saw at the end of SCREAMERS.
Or they could have made the actor in AOTC sound more like Boba Fett? Absolutely no reason why not. Or George could have made up a new character instead of milking Boba Fett to get more fans in the theatre... Two choices right there. Seriously though, just listen to the difference on YouTube. The voice makes a huge difference.
I know this is where opinions diverge, but I think to make the originals and prequels feel like one series the prequels would have to be ... you know, not terrible. I don't care how many changes Lucas makes, I can't look at intelligent, calculating Darth Vader and see boorish, imbecilic Anakin. I can't look at buzz droids and lasers that shoot fifty times a second and still feel it's the same universe. I'm aware other people don't share this opinion, but there we go.
I'd say replacing the original Emperor was the only special edition change that makes sense, but I dislike the execution. He looks basically the same as in ROTS, but he should really look closer to how we see him in ROTJ. I also preferred how the original was more in shadow, but that's personal preference.
Not to clip out parts but I think you put it quite well. As I was thinking on this topic (I think way too long and hard about these things
If not Wookies, due to cost, or other factors, then what about making the Ewoks suffer in some way. Either they are being used as slave labor (odd, I know, but considering they can carry a full human on a pole, so maybe?) or they are being threatened in some other way. I mean, it could be deforestation, destruction of habitat, target practice or something. Have the Empire threaten them in some way. But, it takes the Rebels being willing to make the sacrifice and slaughter some of the Imperials to demonstrate the possibility that the Empire can be beaten.
Aww, well thanks! I also think a lot about ROTJ. It was my favorite as a child. Now I kinda think it's the best of Star Wars and the worst of Star Wars.
The problem you're always going to run into with Ewoks is that they're Ewoks. Bottom line: they look like teddy bears and still use stone weapons. Your ideas make sense on a thematic level, but then it would almost be laughable to see the Empire even bother with these creatures. I'd prefer to either have Han and Leia as part of the space battle or have just Han and the Rebel troops working to bring down the shield without any Ewoks. I'd prefer the first option since it would put more focus on the Rebellion. One of the major problems with ROTJ is that Han and Leia have basically completed their arcs, so it makes sense to downplay their individual roles and combine them with the main actions of the Rebellion.
Ultimately, I just feel the movie would be stronger without the Ewoks. That's not to say I hate them, but I don't think they fit.
I still think ROTJ has some of the best fight scenes in all of Star Wars-period. The space battle is hands down fantastic.
As for overthinking it, just be glad you can't see all the iterations that go on inside my brain. It's a long meandering road
The point that I am trying to make is to regard the Ewoks as a nuisance to be exterminated. I think if you played up that attitude in some way, that the Empire regarded them as "things" (as so famously alluded to in ANH) worth nothing more than extermination, then there is potential for them to become more.
One of the big themes within ROTJ is how big the conflict is. In ESB we get hints of the larger conflict, and how big the Empire is, and how big the Rebellion is. ROTJ ramps it up by showcasing how far Imperial reach is, and expanding the battle to include more Rebel forces, and higher stakes.
Now, the Ewoks are not necessary, but I think they showcase the Rebel cause in a more simple way. The Empire regards them as insignificant, and barely worth noting, while Leia takes time to make contact, and connect. Is the movie less without it? No, I don't think so. Could it have been done better? I think the argumentation over the years as demonstrated that's a yes.
I like a lot of your ideas, and think that Han's role could have been expanded in a different way, especially if we went with Wookies over Ewoks.
What I do like about the Ewoks is that it expands the idea of the Rebellion being for everyone, not just the powerful though. Again, a common mythological trope.
There was a time when I thought similarly, that the way to improve ROTJ was to make the Vietnam analogy more explicitly, possibly along lines such as you've suggested. For example, if you go full Vietnam, then the Empire would have cleared the forest within a certain radius of the bunker, and it would have been impossible to approach the facility unseen, at least above ground.Not to clip out parts but I think you put it quite well. As I was thinking on this topic (I think way too long and hard about these things
If not Wookies, due to cost, or other factors, then what about making the Ewoks suffer in some way. Either they are being used as slave labor (odd, I know, but considering they can carry a full human on a pole, so maybe?) or they are being threatened in some other way. I mean, it could be deforestation, destruction of habitat, target practice or something. Have the Empire threaten them in some way. But, it takes the Rebels being willing to make the sacrifice and slaughter some of the Imperials to demonstrate the possibility that the Empire can be beaten.
This is just idle speculation, but I don't want to give the impression that the Ewoks are flawless because they are not. They are, however, fitting for the theme, but could take a bit of adjusting to fit more.
Within the past few years I changed my mind, because I realized than any such change would darken the tone of the film. As it stands, the film treats dark material. There are many nightmarish elements in Jabba's palace, but these are offset by the goofiness that's encountered at almost every turn. The sequences with the Emperor cover dark material, but McDiarmid's performance is delightful and infused with humor. TESB was already quite dark. For the OT to go out on an upbeat note, there can't be too much dragging ROTJ towards the dark. It's hard to beat the Teddy Bear for a friendly face, and the choice to go with that probably provided subliminal comfort; to reuse the word, the ground battle scenes were infused with family-friendliness by that choice alone, which was certainly a tough thing to accomplish anyway, and probably would have been even tougher otherwise. So, yeah, IMO, going with Teddy Bears kept it light, by comparison with what it could have easily been with Wookiees.
This is an excellent point, one I wrestled with back and forth with as I discussed it.
Now, personally, the only change I would make is that the Imperials are more hostile towards the Ewoks rather than indifferent. But, I like exploring possibilities.
But, your point is well taken. I do think that Ewoks add a lighter tone to the film, and are a good balance to the extremely dark material of the Emperor, and the loss of life.
So, I see both sides.
