Spoilers The Controversial Star Wars Opinion Thread
- Thread starter fireproof78
- Start date
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!!
I think George Lucas' wife at the time did it. She's credited as the one to have saved the project because of it.
And I'm sure the Academy deeply values your expert opinion.
And I give to you, Exhibit A: -
A New Hope always comes off as the odd duck in the Star Wars franchise to me. It's a film that has been shown, dissected, discussed, analyzed, replicated, and parodied so many times in the past 40+ years that's its hard to see what was ever so mind-blowingly special about it. Clearly it was, or it wouldn't have changed cinema the way it had, but over time... its uniqueness gets lost.
Also its low-budget and simple story makes it feel at odds with the grand moves and turns that make up the rest of the Star Wars films. It has its place in cinematic history, but I can see why some, including me at times, see the film as just not that great.
Also its low-budget and simple story makes it feel at odds with the grand moves and turns that make up the rest of the Star Wars films. It has its place in cinematic history, but I can see why some, including me at times, see the film as just not that great.
Last edited:
I can very much agree with this.
Who gives a fuck what the academy thinks? Personal opinion is better than group think.
As is often the case; context tells the real story. Go back and look at the most popular/highest grossing/more acclaimed movies from the decade prior, then take a look at what came after as a direct result. At least on a technical level the contrast is truly staggering. Star Wars wasn't just a next logical step, it was a quantum leap forwards on several fronts.
Moreover; look at the immediate improvements made with tESB, because that was the movie they spent all of the first movie learning how to make.
One also has to judge a movie on it's own terms based what it's trying to achieve. The plot is simple by design; it's not trying to be overly cleaver or innovative in that sense.
In the earlier drafts of the script the plot was much more complex and involved, but it ultimately just made it impenetrable to everyone who isn't a massive 30's pulp sci-fi nerd. So Lucas streamlined and simplified it. He even deliberately held back on the cinematography and camerawork in particular; shooting the whole thing in more of a documentarian style, allowing the audience to be pulled into the world.
In some ways it's a very restrained film, and I feel restraint is often an overlooked virtue in filmaking. It speaks of a certain confidence of storytelling that he didn't feel the need to add clever flourishes or complex transitions.
On the editing side; for the most part it's perfectly sound. In some places it's downright brilliant. The whole space battle sequence is nothing short of masterful, and no surprise Lucas began working on it before he'd even shot a single frame by cutting together existing WWII movie footage (and basically inventing pre-vis in the process.) So the ground work for that was rock solid.
The only places it gets a little rough is where they either had to cut something that didn't work, didn't have time to complete, or they simply didn't have sufficient footage on the day.
Indeed a better example of that last one is actually in RotJ; there's a number of very awkward cuts in the Sail Barge battle sequence, and it's not because the editor was doing a poor job, it's because it was a very challenging location shoot (seriously; mass snake infestations, broken limbs plural. It was rough!), a very complex action sequence where three or four things are happening simultaneously every few seconds, all of which suspended in mid-air in a desert, in the middle of the day . . . and they simply didn't get everything they needed. So the edit just hurries though a few beats and hope there's enough inertia to carry the audience through.
These days, they'd just go back and do reshoots on the greenscreen or the volume to fill in the gaps. Obviously back then that simply wasn't an option; thus the editor had to fudge it a little.
As a result though; to this day most fans think Han is the one that damaged Boba's jetpack, when what actually happened is that it's the deck gunner that blew a chunk out of it (that's what knocks him over in the first place) and Han just accidentally jabs the staff into the exposed electronics, causing it to short out and loose control.
Last edited:
I may not agree with Lucas on everything, but there are certain little details that he finds and is able to capture. The jetpack with Boba Fett is one, as well as the jetpack with Jango Fett, and his head flying out in the shadows when Mace decapitates him.
I think the Star Wars films, and I include all of them when I say this, have such a beautiful editorial language that I enjoy, regardless of the rest.
I think the Star Wars films, and I include all of them when I say this, have such a beautiful editorial language that I enjoy, regardless of the rest.
Whoever thinks Star Wars (1977) was a low-budget film is objectively wrong. While it didn't get funding on the same level as Close Encounters, which Spielberg was able to swing in no small part because of his prior blockbuster success with Jaws, Star Wars was budgeted well above the average for theatrical films of its day [https://www.filmsite.org/70sintro.html]. If the studio had known what sort of success the film would enjoy, no doubt they would have budgeted and negotiated differently. Before it was begun, no one had any idea, except possibly Lucas himself; it was after all his passion project.
If you want to go back and see what a low-budget space sci-fi theatrical film of that era looked like, see Starship Invasions (1977), at $1 million.
If you want to go back and see what a low-budget space sci-fi theatrical film of that era looked like, see Starship Invasions (1977), at $1 million.
Star Wars was by no means a b-movie; it was decidedly mid-budget. I think where people get the misapprehension to the contrary is just the wide disparity between the results they got, with the money they had.
Any other production of the day attempting this would have cost ten times as much (which means it literally wouldn't have happened at all because no studio at the time would ever swing that) and even at that price, it wouldn't have been as good because ILM spent almost the entirety of their initial effects budget on R&D without completing hardly any actual shots (which incidentally, is the last straw that put George in the hospital.) Point being, they invented new technology that simply didn't exist before for anyone else to use. Motion control wasn't a thing until they built the dykstraflex by hand.
So I think it's more accurate to say that Star Wars was a *relatively* low budget movie. Emphasis on the "relative" part. By rights, it should have cost way more than it did, and it's a testament to the enormous skill of the people assembled for that crew.
Any other production of the day attempting this would have cost ten times as much (which means it literally wouldn't have happened at all because no studio at the time would ever swing that) and even at that price, it wouldn't have been as good because ILM spent almost the entirety of their initial effects budget on R&D without completing hardly any actual shots (which incidentally, is the last straw that put George in the hospital.) Point being, they invented new technology that simply didn't exist before for anyone else to use. Motion control wasn't a thing until they built the dykstraflex by hand.
So I think it's more accurate to say that Star Wars was a *relatively* low budget movie. Emphasis on the "relative" part. By rights, it should have cost way more than it did, and it's a testament to the enormous skill of the people assembled for that crew.
Last edited:
I don't really like Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan in the Prequels, especially I and II (although he did get a lot better in III).
On the other hand, I think OT Obi-Wan is a lot better than OT Yoda, Yoda is I guess good but not amazing, not that great or profound (especially his demanding/claiming "*Do* or do not, there is no try.").
On the other hand, I think OT Obi-Wan is a lot better than OT Yoda, Yoda is I guess good but not amazing, not that great or profound (especially his demanding/claiming "*Do* or do not, there is no try.").
Go watch just about any sci-fi film from before ANH, and you’ll see the difference. With the possible exception of Kubrick’s 2001, they all look incredibly amateurish by post-Star Wars standards.
Watch Planet of the Apes, The Andromeda Strain, Fahrenheit 451, Soylent Green, Westworld, Logan’s Run, Silent Running. These were the pinnacle of cinematic sci-fi before Star Wars.
What did you find less than satisfying about McGregor's crafting of the Kenobi character, since he was arguably the one thing about the PT that was almost universally praised and set apart from the endless creative disasters found in that trilogy.
It was probably mostly the writing but he comes off too much as an unthinking stickler for always following rules and being perplexed to more unsympathetic to people having stronger emotions.
If you recall, not one minute after being knighted, he threatened to break the rules to teach a certain boy if the council did not authorize his training, all based on the dying wish (and an unfounded one from Kenobi's TPM perspective) of Jinn. He often bent the rules just to deal with that certain Padawan and the idea that he was some sort of Chosen One.
Well, in most cases concerning a certain Padawan, he was an unhinged idiot who thought more of himself than he should have, so that would test even a man as patient as Kenobi.
You sumarize it quite well. I love McGregor's performance, save for in Episode 1 which was very hit and miss.
Obi-Wan may have said rebellious things, but lacked the conviction of feeling like he meant it to Yoda. He just parroted Qui-Gon's wishes, which then came across as stilted and disinterested in Anakin in AOTC. Most of the time Obi-Wan seems to be looking at Anakin with disapproval.
Similar threads
