Star Wars: All Film & Television

[MasterMastermnd]

I don't know, there's some good ones. "I thought I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board" is a good one. A lot of the best ones were written and then cut. My favorites: "But we can’t turn back, fear is their greatest defense, I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust and what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault."

And" I should have known better than to trust the logic of a half-sized thermocapsulary dehousing assister..."

 

[Mordeen]

Star Wars came out when I was six years old.

I remember waiting in line for hours for our turn to see it in my small home town in Ohio that only had two screens. The line was around the block.

When the Empire Strikes Back came out I sat in the theater and almost cried when Vader revealed himself to Luke.

We went and saw Return of the Jedi in a theater in California right after we had to move. It was massive crowds. When Vader threw Palpatine into the abyss I stood up and cheered.

My point is that while Lucas can be clunky, he is brilliant.

- Mordeen

 

[Mordeen]

I don't know, there's some good ones. "I thought I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board" is a good one. A lot of the best ones were written and then cut. My favorites: "But we can’t turn back, fear is their greatest defense, I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust and what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault."

And" I should have known better than to trust the logic of a half-sized thermocapsulary dehousing assister..."

Make no mistake, there are brilliant and unforgettable lines of dialogue and that's my point. The great ones outweigh the weak.

" Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."

IMHO possibly the best line in the history of film.

- Mordeen

 

[Jordan Cole]

" Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."

IMHO possibly the best line in the history of film.

That is a good one

 

[Dom]

Picking up on the whole thread, I think George Lucas's prequels get a lot of stick, but Lucas decided to use the films not just as storytelling vehicles, but as ways to expand filmmaking technology. The Phantom Menace has some sections shot digitally. Attack of the Clones was shot 2K. While not everything works in the films, they're big experiments, doing things no one else had at that point. Robert Rodriguez took the cameras from Attack of the Clones and shot Once Upon a Time in Mexico, down and dirty, quickly. The stability of digital capture meant he used rubber fake guns and added the gunfire flashes in post, saving money and time. Lucas's narrative choices aren't necessarily ones I agree with, but I respect what he's doing.

Crucially Star Wars carried influences from other genres as well as Lucas's interest in Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. Lucas wanted to explore the monomyth, along with paying tribute to the sweeping romantic adventures of his youth. The trouble with modern Disney Star Wars is that it's primarily influenced by Star Wars and the writers are postmodernists who deconstruct, where Lucas sought to elevate and celebrate. Indiana Jones is a perfect example: Raiders of the Lost Ark is about a romantic hero in the ultimate matinee serial movie. Dial of Destiny brings down Indy, deconstructs him, drawing moral equivalence between him and villainous relic thieves, breaks him on the wheel of time, and presents him as decrepit and useless, because romantic heroes are no longer allowed. 'Jake' Skywalker (as Mark Hamill called him) is the same in The Last Jedi. It's all a far cry from the sprightly eyepatch-wearing George Hall Indy of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

I've described this era of popular culture as the 'rightsholder era' in the past. We're in a time where the people who created a lot of intellectual property have moved on, sold up or died. These properties are now in the hands of people two or three generations removed from the creators. They have the legal right to use existing characters, but I don't believe they have the moral right. It's one thing for George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry to make a prequel that changes your perception of the past, but quite different when someone else does. I would have no objection to Disney making new Star Wars films set a thousand years after the originals, where the originals are ancient history and mythology. Have Rey 1,000 years later find the Millennium Falcon. Have her team up with Chewie's great grandson. Apart from a couple of glorified cameos by the old cast, the Disney Sequel Trilogy could have been set in a different era, no harm done. I have no objection to Paramount making a 26th Century-set Star Trek: The Next, Next Generation with new characters. But I have major issues with recasting the earlier characters and changing them. Characters such as Kirk, Spock, Pike, McCoy and the history of their universe is sacrosanct in my mind. Picard Season Three really only gets a pass because Terry Matalas worked under Rick Berman's stewardship.

 

[Jordan Cole]

I would have no objection to Disney making new Star Wars films set a thousand years after the originals, where the originals are ancient history and mythology. Have Rey 1,000 years later find the Millennium Falcon. Have her team up with Chewie's great grandson. Apart from a couple of glorified cameos by the old cast, the Disney Sequel Trilogy could have been set in a different era, no harm done.

I agree with everything in your post, and it's a topic I talk about all the time, especially when I worked in a comic store and saw so many books coming out of franchises written by fans of the franchise, some even younger than me. But this part of your post made me think of this sketch:

 

[Mordeen]

Lest we forget his innovation of the digital cinema projector. I was at the first screening of it. It was immaculate.

- Mordeen

 

[Dom]

Lest we forget his innovation of the digital cinema projector. I was at the first screening of it. It was immaculate.

- Mordeen

Yes, growing up in the provinces of England, we had to wait months for films to turn up here, because the prints would do their main run around the USA before getting here. I had never seen a pristine print of a film before digital projection! I remember us arrogant film students scoffing at Lucas in the mid-1990s when he said he wanted digital cinema projection, that movies could be stored on hard drives or... get this!! ... downloaded to a cinema over the internet! How we laughed! We're not laughing now!!!!

 

[Dom]

I agree with everything in your post, and it's a topic I talk about all the time, especially when I worked in a comic store and saw so many books coming out of franchises written by fans of the franchise, some even younger than me. But this part of your post made me think of this sketch:

VIDEO

Yeah, that video sums things up perfectly! Rather prescient, wasn't it?! Lucas's concept for the sequels is way out there and probably would have been contentious if made, but once again it did something new. I guess the reason I wouldn't object to a far future setting is essentially that it's far enough removed from original continuity that it doesn't have to touch it. It keeps the fans happy because they can be 'modular' about it: they can like one independent storyline, or ignore another they don't like.

Star Trek: TNG was a good guide: being set the better part of a century later, also allows it to be an 'optional' future for TOS fans. It allows me, as a fan, to jump off if I don't care for it and stick to reading TOS books. When you think back to TNG, there were very few direct callbacks to the original Star Trek. Other than the basic setting, few stories happened as a direct consequence of earlier Star Trek stories and the crossover film with Kirk was everything Gene Roddenberry was trying to avoid. And, indeed, when the Mirror Universe from the original series' Mirror, Mirror turned up in DS9, Kira Nerys had no idea who James Kirk was. I like that.

With Star Wars, there was a huge, ancient history established as having existed and there were many years' worth of books set in the decades after Return of the Jedi. Had the sequel trilogy been set far in the future, everything could have been left in the wider continuity, keeping everyone happy.

 

[Mordeen]

They murdered Han and Luke.

Then Carrie shit the bed and killed herself.

What a mess.

- Mordeen

 

[Dom]

They murdered Han and Luke.

Then Carrie shit the bed and killed herself.

What a mess.

- Mordeen

Yeah. And they followed that by taking characters and situations from the Expanded Universe books that involved the original characters and handed them to their own characters. There were two sensible options when it came to the sequels if you set it within the recent era: you have the original characters upfront as the leads for the first film and introduce the next generation, who gradually take over for the follow ups or you focus entirely on new characters and drop in a cameo by the originals, such as Leia, Han and Luke being consulted together by the leads at some point for help on their mission.

What you don't do is is deconstruct - aka destroy and break - those original characters. Han has split from Leia, has gone back to being a smuggler and is a deadbeat dad. Luke is a pissed off angry loner who had a nightmare that his nephew would turn bad and was willing to kill him for that bad dream, even though Luke had been the one man to believe he could save his father's soul despite his father being an actual mass murderer. Thus the Jedi were wiped out. In essence, to create the sequel trilogy, they had to bin the entire original trilogy's plotline, even having Palpatine still alive (and rely on the novelisation to explain how 'Palpatine' is alive and how Rey is his 'granddaughter'!) Leia is so stoic as no longer to be a human being (Carrie's health was an issue sadly.)

I feel like sagas I love have been hijacked by people who no longer care about them for what they are.

 

[Mr. Reindeer]

They murdered Han and Luke.

Then Carrie shit the bed and killed herself.

What a mess.

- Mordeen

“Carrie shit the bed and killed herself”? She was an addict, which is a very real physical disease. She died of cardiac arrest. Have some goddamn respect for a fellow human being.

 

[Mr. Reindeer]

BTW, Han dying was something that Harrison Ford demanded when he returned to the role. So if we’re going to blame actors for things that happened in the story, let’s be equal opportunity. (And to state the obvious, real-world tragedies involving actual people and writing choices involving characters are not the same thing and shouldn’t be equated.) And Luke’s arc as a hermit was, as far as I know, the only thing in the sequel trilogy that actually came from Lucas’s outlines. I personally like it, but whether you do or not, pretty much all the creative forces behind Star Wars seem to be on the same page on that.

 

[Dom]

“Carrie shit the bed and killed herself”? She was an addict, which is a very real physical disease. She died of cardiac arrest. Have some goddamn respect for a fellow human being.

I don't think he literally meant she did an 'Amber Heard'. When 'shit the bed' is used, it generally means 'screwed up.'

I read Mordeen's post as 'Carrie screwed up and ended up dead'. Trouble is, I wonder if having to lose a load of weight relatively quickly in the run up to The Force Awakens was the last thing she should have done. Older people who are overweight have to be terribly careful about weight loss. Loss what happened to Oliver Hardy as another example. So, she lost a load of weight and shortly before she died, she accidentally revealed she was off the wagon again as well. The whole thing was a titanic mess, given Debbie Reynolds died right after. They should never have used Carrie Fisher in The Rise of Skywalker Palpatine either. Horribly disrespectful.

 

[Mr. Reindeer]

I don't think he literally meant she did an 'Amber Heard'. When 'shit the bed' is used, it generally means 'screwed up.'

I read Mordeen's post as 'Carrie screwed up and ended up dead'. Trouble is, I wonder if having to lose a load of weight relatively quickly in the run up to The Force Awakens was the last thing she should have done. Older people who are overweight have to be terribly careful about weight loss. Loss what happened to Oliver Hardy as another example. So, she lost a load of weight and shortly before she died, she accidentally revealed she was off the wagon again as well. The whole thing was a titanic mess, given Debbie Reynolds died right after. They should never have used Carrie Fisher in The Rise of Skywalker Palpatine either. Horribly disrespectful.

Mordeen was saying that she killed herself because of her drug use. He has previously used the phrase “crackheads” a few weeks ago. He clearly looks down on people who are addicts.

 

[Dom]

BTW, Han dying was something that Harrison Ford demanded when he returned to the role. So if we’re going to blame actors for things that happened in the story, let’s be equal opportunity. (And to state the obvious, real-world tragedies involving actual people and writing choices involving characters are not the same thing and shouldn’t be equated.) And Luke’s arc as a hermit was, as far as I know, the only thing in the sequel trilogy that actually came from Lucas’s outlines. I personally like it, but whether you do or not, pretty much all the creative forces behind Star Wars seem to be on the same page on that.

Context is the issue though. Luke looked very different at the end of The Force Awakens from the smelly old dosser he was turned into in The Last Jedi. Rian Johnson decided to deconstruct, showing contempt for the series. Mark Hamill was very unhappy and nicknamed his character 'Jake'. The JJ Abrams had to turn things around after Colin Trevorrow threw up his arms and called it a day. As I say, I would genuinely have preferred they set the sequels a thousand years in the future. The existence of Force ghosts mean Luke and Leia, even Han, could have appeared. I still kind of hope Lucas's sequel stories could be turned into an animated series. I want to see the triumph of the Whills!

Mordeen was saying that she killed herself because of her drug use. He has previously used the phrase “crackheads” a few weeks ago. He clearly looks down on people who are addicts. His words are unambiguous.

Addiction actually should be seen as unacceptable. I know it's a terrible thing not to have that one level of control. I was an alcoholic myself for many years who had fallen into cocaine addiction, which is beyond terrible to describe. Believe me, Mr R, I'm so ashamed and that shame will linger the rest of my life. I was functional and worked incredibly hard, but every day, after work, I'd be in the pub downing pint after pint, chainsmoking. Wake up with a terrible hangover, shower, force down some food and coffee, go to work. Rinse, repeat. I look back on a good 20 years of my personal life in horror and disgust. When I could have spent money on other things, perhaps had a family, I indulged my demons instead. One of my alcoholic friends keeled over and died at the age of 42. People indulged him, including his family. I walked away a few years before, because I could see where he was heading, because I always knew I needed to stop or I'd die. He didn't want help and ultimately someone would always drink with him, including his family.

Another friend had a wonderful wife and two beautiful children. Something inside him was broken, though, and he became a drunk - I think because he didn't believe on some level that he deserved his good fortune. He lost his family. My cousin - heavy drinking runs in the family - drank three bottles of champagne a night. She - a lifelong non-smoker - developed lung and bone cancer and died in her early 50s and everyone indulged her because she was great company. In every case, these people were indulged.

So while people with addiction problems need some help, treating the disease as unacceptable is very important. It's the toughest thing for loved ones or people in general to do. Walking away and treating them with contempt often has to be done. I'm clean and have been on the wagon for over five years and would never go back. It feels like longer. It was the looks of contempt and disappointment (including those of the person looking at me in the mirror each morning) that ultimately turned me around.

 

[Mr. Reindeer]

Alcoholic myself here, buddy. I agree with you, and I appreciate you sharing (as I know you’ve done in the past as well). Treatment is important, and the disease is nothing to be proud of. I spent a lot of my life being proud of being a functional alcoholic, and I feel intense shame looking back on that. But it’s also not appropriate to shame another person for suffering from the disease. Mordeen doesn’t have any fucking clue what Carrie Fisher was going through in her personal life or what demons she was dealing with. Do I wish she’d gotten clean and lived longer? Of course! But Mordeen’s negative terminology toward her is shitty and inappropriate, as is his entitlement that he was owed another performance as Leia, prioritizing that over whatever she was dealing with in her own personal life. At the end of the day, Star Wars isn’t that important, and the real tragedy is that the woman wasn’t well. Mordeen acting like he’s the victim of Fisher’s actions is what bothers me. Especially on a forum where we’re all fans of a show where a lead character was a cocaine addict! You’d think there’d be some compassion.

 

[Dom]

Alcoholic myself here, buddy. I agree with you, and I appreciate you sharing (as I know you’ve done in the past as well). Treatment is important, and the disease is nothing to be proud of. I spent a lot of my life being proud of being a functional alcoholic, and I feel intense shame looking back on that. But it’s also not appropriate to shame another person for suffering from the disease. Mordeen doesn’t have any fucking clue what Carrie Fisher was going through in her personal life or what demons she was dealing with. Do I wish she’d gotten clean and lived longer? Of course! But Mordeen’s negative terminology toward her is shitty and inappropriate, as is his entitlement that he was owed another performance as Leia, prioritizing that over whatever she was dealing with in her own personal life. At the end of the day, Star Wars isn’t that important, and the real tragedy is that the woman wasn’t well. Mordeen acting like he’s the victim of Fisher’s actions is what bothers me. Especially on a forum where we’re all fans of a show where a lead character was a cocaine addict!

Yeah, I dated a 'Laura Palmer'. Good times at the time, terrible times in retrospect. It's a difficult one. Part of me agrees with you, part of me with Mordeen.

I'm glad you're doing ok. I was only thinking last night, as I sat in bed reading my book (Merlin by Stephen Lawhead, which I finished, then started SoHo Sins, by Richard Vine) how much I missed doing something as simple as that for years. My reading times used to be on the tube in the morning and at lunchtime. I wasn't capable of reading at night.

I was sorry Carrie Fisher died, because she was a terrific, funny writer and a good actress in her prime. She was wonderful in When Harry Met Sally. It wa sad to see how woozy she seemed on medication in her later days. There was no way we were ever going to get a 'proper' Princess Leia performance from her in those sequels anyway, sadly. Not keen on recasting her either. They need to move on well beyond the 'Death Star/Emperor era' if they want Star Wars to live again.

 

[Mordeen]

I don't think he literally meant she did an 'Amber Heard'. When 'shit the bed' is used, it generally means 'screwed up.'

I read Mordeen's post as 'Carrie screwed up and ended up dead'. Trouble is, I wonder if having to lose a load of weight relatively quickly in the run up to The Force Awakens was the last thing she should have done. Older people who are overweight have to be terribly careful about weight loss. Loss what happened to Oliver Hardy as another example. So, she lost a load of weight and shortly before she died, she accidentally revealed she was off the wagon again as well. The whole thing was a titanic mess, given Debbie Reynolds died right after. They should never have used Carrie Fisher in The Rise of Skywalker Palpatine either. Horribly disrespectful.

Yeah that's what I meant. I have respect for fellow human beings but you make choices in life and they have consequences.

As far as Harrison Ford's request to kill off his character, that seems disingenuous considering he came back for The Rise of Skywalker.

My straight up point was that the sequels were garbage and disrespectful to Lucas' vision for how the sequels would play out.

Disney hasn't made a good movie or series in years. They suck.

My opinion. Like it or not.

- Mordeen

 

[Mr. Reindeer]

As far as Harrison Ford's request to kill off his character, that seems disingenuous considering he came back for The Rise of Skywalker.

It’s not disingenuous when it’s documentably true that he has repeatedly and categorically said he wanted Han to die, going back to the original trilogy. The fact that he chose to play the role again after he died doesn’t change that.

Yeah that's what I meant. I have respect for fellow human beings but you make choices in life and they have consequences.

Yeah, I don’t think you understand how addiction works.