For me it boils down to one factor.

And that, my headphone-loving friends, is the CHEESE factor.

I can't quantify this completely, and I am very tired after having spent my brain on a project I just finished... but there is definitely a CHEESE factor to the new series that makes them not as good. I think one of the biggest things is that it is a series made for the late 70's/early 80's, and that era just doesn't translate all that well to the late 90's/early 00's.

I also can't tell if it's because I am older now, and can't appreciate new stuff aimed at younger audiences. I wonder if I had been 21 at the time the neverending story came out if I would cherish the movie.

Junk with sentimental attachment is always nice... even if it is just junk. (like my sony mdr-v100's )

Quote:



The James Bond series has just finished its 20th. Connery acted in 6, Moore in 7; I love almost all of the Bond movies (except #6, License to Kill, and the Brosnan movies). Some of the greatest names in film were involved in those movies (often secretly), including Auguste Renoir (cinematographer, son of Jean Renoir the director and grandson of Pierre-Auguste Renoir the painter), Kubrik, and others.

The original Star Wars trilogy included one of the best actors of all time (Alec Guiness), as well as the soon-to-be star Harrison Ford. Not to mention James Earl Jones. The writing was sort of crappy, but it was good sci-fi writing. It was just a crazy far-out sci-fi story that tried to get around a lack of technology and money. This time, Lucas spent all his money on special effects, but special effects don't make a movie. He had the money to buy some really big actors, but he chose to go the risky way as in the original trilogy and go for no-names. The movies could have been fine had the money been spent correctly -- spend on a decent writer and director, then buy a few moderately expensive actors for the lead roles. Then spend the rest on technology. But Lucas was trying to capture a very young audience that doesn't really know any better than to like that ridiculous garbage.

For those who think that the originals can't be recreated -- how hard could it possibly be? There have been good sci-fi movies made in the 70's, 80's, and 90's -- there's no reason that updated Star Wars movies couldn't be made to be good in this new century.

the dvd is on sale at Toys R US for $9.00 until 11/20.

ah, episode 1 where a 9 year old kid falls in love with a 17 year old and then in episode 2 they are the same age

the casting director (chooser) Englund (i think) should be fired. nothing like the latin/Spanish guy in Conquistador costume

the only good scene was the 'snakes' in the bedroom scene. the chase - saw it in the Fifth Element. Yoda fight was contrived. I did like seeing Christopher Lee, though. but plans for the Planet Killer? it should've been something MUCH more dangerous.

Why didn't they make a series for adult and another for kids? yeah he killed everyone in the village. so what? i wanted to see the carnage.

the reason why the last 3 SW's have sucked is because he forgot what "Saturday Serials" were like. maybe if goes back to a cliffhanger every 30 minutes he can recapture the magic.

the Ewoks were supposed to be Chewbacas. Now that would've been kick ass.

give me a Star Wars set in an Alien universe. now you got something. (I'd also like to see a movie where the Borg try to assimilate the Aliens )

pray for the next Indie film.

$9 at toys r us? I'm all for that!

But wait. . . damn, no. I'm not getting suckered in again. I got the star wars episode I vhs, only with the DVD coming out. I will NOT be lucas's cash cow. . .

Quote:



True, but how many were written, produced, shot, edited, and everything else by the same person like Lucas did?? Not many. I should have been more clear, but what I was saying is how many other movies or directors have done what Lucas has? He has done two sets of trilogies carrying the same theme, same actors lots of times, etc. The James bond series were all based on the same character, but with the creativity of different directors almost every movie tey are varied enough to keep us interested time after time with something different. If the same person did let's say 5-6 of the James Bond movies they would start getting old hat pretty quickly also. Maybe it's time Lucas let someone has have more say in the movie!!!


LobsterSan,

Great point about movies carrying much more magic for lack of a better word when we were younger. Not many kids sit around and analyze the acting of various people in the movies they watch.


I also agree with most that these newer movies have a seriousness about them that was totally missing in the first movies. With Harrison Ford cutting things up and keeping it light the movies just flowed along a little better. No one really keeps it lighthearted. It's all so Jedi serious now! And the first movies were under the incredible tyranny of the Empire to boot!!

True, but how many were written, produced, shot, edited, and everything else by the same person like Lucas did

okay, false. He hasnt done all that alone.

Quote:



hmmm . . . i don't remember mark hamill reading (badly) from a cue card.

Quote:



are you denying that his performance was the worst you've ever seen on film?

i'm with elipsis on this one: most child actors could have done a better job. you know, the problem wasn't necessarily bad casting. those types of errors are made all the time. no, the error was on Lucas's part when the saw the rushes of this kid and did not recast his part. as DanG says, there was probably no money left over for any recasting/reshooting.

anyway, to me the phantom anus represents everything that's wrong with hollywood: a lot of money and no brains.

Quote:



Very true. CF: Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Tom Cruise.

Quote:



Also true... and my point was that he got someone else to do the first two, so why not get someone good?

Regarding the comparison to Bond movies... I just realized that most of the Bonds (but not anymore) were based on Ian Fleming's novels. But note that when a Fleming script wasn't available (as with Thunderball which couldn't use the original Thunderball story due to copyright issues or The Spy Who Loved Me) the Broccoli & co. worked hard to buy the people who could do the job. Bond movies are also very formulaic, like Star Wars, and also lack any deep themes or much philosophical value. But the set designs are fantastic through ingenuity instead of tacky technology, the stories are down-to-earth in their real complexity but immediate and entertaining, and the movies (the good ones -- meaning not Timothy Dalton or the #6 guy) are light-hearted and all the more entertaining for it. The new Star Wars are bad because they try to be light-hearted in a very childish way (idiotic characters, bathroom jokes) and are trite in presentation.

Lucas can market, but he's no artist. It's no coincidence John Williams does all the scores...

Quote:



actually, i was talking about hollywood studios and the crappy movies they push. NOT the hollywood affiliation with the Democratic party . . . which is very sensible.

Drove to my local Toys R Us to buy AotC, and it seems they blew out their entire stock in less than an hour!! People lined up for 45 minutes to get a copy at that incredible price!! After trying Toy R Us my wife and I drove to Circuit City which had it in stock for $15, but they were closed, so it was off to Good Guys where they had tons of them in stock. Later we found out why: they're trying to charge $20 for it!! I hope they get a clue and start offering stuff at real world values!!!

Quote:



I know, but I couldn't resist.

Quote:



Seems to me that strong affiliation with any party is not very sensible, unless you have something to gain. I think it shows the kind of people that populate Hollywood, though. Tom Cruise, as far as I know, is not a big-time political idiot. However, he's a scientologist, which is almost as bad as being part of the Demagogue party.

However, if you look at things from a more optimistic point of view, you'll see that many of the directors and producers working in America today are quite good. The Coen brothers are very intelligent and talented, as well. Before Kevin Smith became a sellout, he showed a lot of promise. Spielberg, Lucas, and other big-time producers/directors may have little talent for the creation of art, but they have great business sense and know that to try to make everyone happy means you will make nobody happy and in turn collect no money. They're businessmen, and that's about it. I have a similar qualm with Barry Levinson -- I loved Diner, but his silly sci-fi movies are very disappointing. France's socialist system really is best for the creation of great films -- pay the director and producer the same amount no matter whether the movie succeeds or fails. If you have brains behind the cameras and the typewriters, there'll be incentive only to create art, not Toys R Us movies.

Quote:



oh no. being a scientologist is much, much worse.

Quote:



what about someone like david lynch? did you see mulholland drive ? it's probably the best thing i've seen out of hollywood in a long, long time (although i admit i don't watch modern movies that much).

Quote:



funny isn't it.

oh, and sorry for hijacking this thread, markl.

i plan on grabbing the disc. i don't see how anybody can say that any of the new episodes are "the worst movie i have ever seen." apparently they didn't see the new version of shaft..

i take them for what they're worth. nothing can ever live up to the classics. it's like if somebody wrote a sequel to lord of the rings, everybody would be bitching and moaning for years, even if the author channeled tolkien's dead soul to write the damn thing.

i think it's odd how big fans often feel that they own soemthing and become emotionally involved when it doesn't live up to their standards. this doesn't just go for star wars, but horror series (friday the 13th, halloween, etc.) and other movies/books/films. i'm not condemning this action, i definitely act similarly when music is concerned (if modest mouse ever gets on the radio, i'll kill myself). i just think it's interesting.

yeah, i'm looking to pick up the disc. i need a high-quality dvd to watch after being so disappointed with the horrible picture quality of the spiderman disc. it's pretty sad when i can tell on my early 90's sony trinitron and ns500v (monster s-video cable )..

oh, i was able to get two bootleg dvds recently: a new hope and empire strikes back on dvd! ripped from laserdiscs and the quality isn't too great (but better than vhs), but still fun to watch.

arnett,
who read what off which cuecards? okay, if you want to see some bad acting in ep 4, just watch the grade-c performances by the empire's officers. these guys should work for ed wood.

in regards to jake's performance as anikin, well, he was bad, but he really seems to be trying. i just ended up feeling sorry for the kid. if you watch the amazing suppliments on ep 1 dvd, you will see the child actor that SHOULD HAVE played anikin. everyone kept telling lucas to choose this kid, but jake reminded lucas of himself (flat, bland, ooooops) so he insisted on jake.

look, star wars is just a saturday serial like the old "flash gordon" movies, with better special effects and lots of copying of older, better movies (buster keaton, kurosawa, "the dam busters", etc.). besides that, they are and SHOULD BE full of cheesy plots, silly dialog, and cardboard acting. this is star wars, not ghandi. and it is the only star wars we have, warts and all.

This is off-topic, but can anyone tell me why a top-billing studio released DVD can sell for $9, or at most $15, at release, when a mildly anticipated album sells for $16, $17 or more? Is there something truly wrong with this equation? I know that movies recoup the majority of their cost in the theater, but price should be reflective of demand. There's some strange discord in my mind how music can cost more than a movie. How in the world can the music industry get away with this ********? Why aren't people holding up their AotC DVD's and saying, "Wait a minute, I can buy a 3-hour movie on DVD for two-thirds the cost of a 40-minute CD that's half filler? What?"