GameBanshee Forums

Here's a thread dedicated to understanding why Fable won't see Star Wars, and, if possible, trying to convince him to see it.

Now, I can understand not wanting to see 'Lost in space' or 'Starship troopers' if you're not a sci fi fan.
But how can someone remain so stubborn as not to dedicate a few hours to see what has been hailed by so many people as great, debatably the most popular movies of all times. Irelevent of any genre you like or dislike.
Surely it is not so bad in concept that you can't give it a single chance?

Could you either clarify this for me, or see the movies and end my questions?

Originally posted by Morlock
Could you either clarify this for me, or see the movies and end my questions?

Sure. I simply don't buy into the Great American Myth (which we got from Britain) about the Little Man who can arise out of Nowhere, take on Ultimate Evil, and save The Universe...while of course, we discover he really wasn't so little after all, but is A Great Untrained One. I've always laughed at this kind of propaganda, no matter the source. English patriotic melodrama of the mid 19th century is just as bad. And the few clips (and 15 minutes I've watched) of Star Wars were filled with poorly written dialog and cheesy, adolescent characters.

Other than that, I suppose you're correct, and I'm just being contrary in avoiding the Greatest Merchandising Effort of All Tim...I mean, er, the films.

Re: Re: @Fable: why no Star Wars?

Originally posted by fable


Sure. I simply don't buy into the Great American Myth (which we got from Britain) about the Little Man who can arise out of Nowhere, take on Ultimate Evil, and save The Universe...while of course, we discover he really wasn't so little after all, but is A Great Untrained One. I've always laughed at this kind of propaganda, no matter the source. English patriotic melodrama of the mid 19th century is just as bad. And the few clips (and 15 minutes I've watched) of Star Wars were filled with poorly written dialog and cheesy, adolescent characters.

Other than that, I suppose you're correct, and I'm just being contrary in avoiding the Greatest Merchandising Effort of All Tim...I mean, er, the films.

Natalie Portman may be cheesy but she certainly is fun to look at.

Re: Re: @Fable: why no Star Wars?

But isn't 'the Little Man who can arise out of Nowhere, take on Ultimate Evil, and save The Universe' basically a form of the most widely used conflict in stories, that of the weak triumphing over the apparently stronger? That the major character was 'A Great untrained One' is merely the variable in this story that gives him a beleivable reason to be able to triumph over his conflict. So if star wars is merely a formulaic form of propaganda, doesn't that also make the entire fantasy and sci fi genres and most of the rest of fiction worth only your laughter? Really, some of the greatest authers use this formula, so are their works only amusing to you?

But isn't 'the Little Man who can arise out of Nowhere, take on Ultimate Evil, and save The Universe' basically a form of the most widely used conflict in stories, that of the weak triumphing over the apparently stronger?

As I see it, there's a big difference. It's one thing for Jack the Giantkiller to destroy his enemy. It's an entirely different matter for Jack to learn he was descended from a secret group of giant-killing, interstellar knights, who train him to free up the planet from everything large and evil. It's all about perspective: Jack frees himself, in effect. His task is suited to his size and capabilities. Star Wars is a pre-adoloscent fantasy, in which the hero doesn't just free himself--no, he frees everybody in the universe, knowing of course what's best for them all.

Star Wars isn't about self-realization, or the strength of innocence (Oliver Twist), or the accidents of fortune (Well of the Unicorn), or the victory of cunning, arms, and friendship (The Three Musketeers). It's all about a little guy who blasts anything that stands in his way, and causes everybody who thinks correctly to celebrate and agree with him, just as they should. It's a retreat into infantilism with computerized graphics.

Originally posted by fable
It's all about a little guy who blasts anything that stands in his way, and frees everybody to think his way. It's a retreat to infantilism with computerized graphics.

I will have to admit I didn't get this from watching the first (4,5,and 6) Star Wars.

To me it seemed like a story of a person who in the end realizes his life was wasted. All the power he had couldn't in the end turn the tides, or his own son.

Which I admit, I watched it more from Vadars view. Luke to me was on the lame side. A farmboy turned avenging hero. The beginning of this was the break between..Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

The part in between ..(Luke becoming a Jedi) was missing and to me made it seem like he got a shot of steroids. I guess this could be laid to blame on the time a movie needs to be...against parts that the director thinks are not relevent.

But at the most basic level aren't all of them really same, the weak through some special advantage, be it magical powers, innocence, courage, ectera, to triumph over the stronger, and the only difference between them is the variance of complexity and the weakness to strenght ratio that the authors create? And if the story follows a somewhat beleivable path to its end, does the relative weakness of the protagonist to his opponent invalidate the whole story?

Since mention Oliver Twist, i will assume you liked it, but in all of Charles ****ens novels, the probability of events occuring in the way he describes makes them nearly impossible, but the difference in the weakness of protagonists compared to the strenght of others is rather small. If it is the other way around, a somewhat beleivable progression (probably a matter of opinion with star wars ) against nearly impossible odds, does that invalidate the story?

@Zelgadis, there are many differences between Dic!ens and Lucas; for one thing, the characters in Dic!ens are, despite their comic effects, extremely believable, and drawn to type. There is little that's believable in the cheesy dialog written in Star Wars. Alec Guiness, who had a major part in the first series, went on record as saying he had a hard time not breaking into laughter everytime he heard or said a line--the stuff was so preposterous.

At another, more cultural level, the difference is that Dic!ens' heroes don't win out by killing things or even beating them singlehandedly into submission. Oliver, for example, wins by innocence of heart--that's all. It's that which draws others to him. He's a touchstone. Totally different from Luke Skywalker, who isn't so much innocent as ignorant, and wakes up to possess Great Power. Oliver Twist never possesses power, nor would he seek anybody else's destruction, either for good or ill. The story is not just about a small guy triumphing over large forces, you see. There are many other elements involved.

But at the most basic level aren't all of them really same, the weak through some special advantage, be it magical powers, innocence, courage, ectera, to triumph over the stronger, and the only difference between them is the variance of complexity and the weakness to strenght ratio that the authors create?

By that way of thinking, every story is equally good or equally bad. I'd suggest that it's what you do with the materials that makes it good or bad. It can also change the entire nature of the work, itself. And as I wrote before, I feel that the materials have been handled very poorly in the case of Star Wars, indeed.

Originally posted by fable
Oliver, for example, wins by innocence of heart--that's all. It's that which draws others to him. He's a touchstone. Totally different from Luke Skywalker, who isn't so much innocent as ignorant, and wakes up to possess Great Power.

I don't think that in this case, there is much difference between innocence and ignorance. Other than that, I must concede the point.

I'd suggest that it's what you do with the materials that makes it good or bad. It can also change the entire nature of the work, itself. And as I wrote before, I feel that the materials have been handled very poorly in the case of Star Wars, indeed.

Just out of curiosity, what would you say is the most important part of the story? I would say the characters, and from your posts i'd guess that you would agree. Do you think good characters can make up for a bad story, and as an extention of that, can good actors make up for a bad movie?

Just out of curiosity, what would you say is the most important part of the story? I would say the characters, and from your posts i'd guess that you would agree. Do you think good characters can make up for a bad story, and as an extention of that, can good actors make up for a bad movie?

Depends on what you mean by "story," I guess. Most plots are hackneyed: the tale of Romeo and Juliet was ancient long before Shakespeare tackled it. What makes it live is the language. Good writing, clever pacing, intelligently devised characters, the introduction of interesting sub-themes--all of these can, in various ways, make a standard plot a work of genius. Good characters, in my limited experience, go hand in hand with good writing-as-technique.

For me, good actors can make up for average movie, but they can make it just bearable. Great actors can't save a bad picture. Similarly, bad or miscast actors can't kill a very good flick for me. I suspect that's because I find actors secondary as creative talent in a film (which isn't meant as a putdown).

I hear what you say, but first of all, there are some undeniably good things about Star War.

IMO the best thing about Star Wars is the music, not the story, charaters, script, or Visual effects. The music that SW has brought is some of the best in movie history, and has at least one track which is IMO as good or better than most classical pieces- and I am a classical music fan.

Star Wars gave at least one great character- Darth Vader. Vader really personifies evil, and especialy in ESB with the Imperial march- which tells you that this is evil in it's truest form.

Obi Wan Kenobi is also a great character acted perfectly by Alec Guiness, who I've seen movies just because he was in it.

Any excuse you could give still doesn't contradict the fact that it deserves at least one viewing. Everything that generates that much hype deserves that much.
Last year I finaly saw 'Citizen Cane'- hated it, but it was over in a couple of hours.
Also last year I saw 'It's a wonderful life'- loved it, made me feel better, even though it's a christmas movie and I'm jewish.
You win some, you lose some.

I won't descuss Star Wars in depth, as to me, it has none. I don't think Lucas is some genius in story telling- I mean he was originaly looking to make 'Flash Gordon', so Star Wars is derived from that. I can't even explain exactly why I like it.
My favorite parts of Episode two were the few points when music from the previous movies were used. The imperial march at the end made the movie for me.
I may just like it because the music.

When involved with marketing, I generaly listen to word of mouth, as a movie has to be worth something if it created it's own religion.

My last note- Marketing doesn't make the artistic content of a movie bad.

Any excuse you could give still doesn't contradict the fact that it deserves at least one viewing. Everything that generates that much hype deserves that much.

1) I didn't give an excuse. I gave an explanation.

2) On the contrary, the fact that it's so very hyped is a perfectly good reason to avoid it. If nothing else, my expressed opinions up here should have convinced you that I don't believe in rule-by-numbers. I have no more intention of seeing a Star Wars flick because just about everybody else living has than I have of ever buying an Elvis record, or voting.

Face it. I'm hopeless.

I can appreciate fable's point of view, it seems he is an opposite to myself, i watch nearly every film i can, i have seen the good the bad and totally pitiful. I base my opinions on what makes a bad movie from this, bad of course can range through many different factors from poorly scripted to shoddy directing, in the end it does help make a mean of what is good and bad, i guess it is a character trait of mine; the truly sublime becomes that much more when one has seen the worst possible.

This is my point of view based on fables answers, i don't mean to do a character study and maybe i am way off base but this is how i see it.

Fable seems to base his opinion on an understanding of the medium and it's shortfalls before going to see something, perhaps reading a review or hearing some friend/colleague give an opinion. It is probably a more rewarding policy and requires more strength of will to not be bumrushed by all the hype, am i close @fable? How this refers to Star Wars? Well if i am right it would mean that this isn't a first and Fable has probably missed a lot of hyped films and is probably none the worse for it

Originally posted by mental_nomad
And just for the record...I loved Star Wars..,,I was first in line to see it as a kid....but I could care less about the rest...I evolved faster than the story did....sadly....ahhhh to be a kid again.....

I actually didn't like A New Hope very much as a youngster, i was much more into Empire Strikes Back, i watched that tape till it's death.

It was not until years later i watched the first one again, then i had grown up and my critical skills had increased; the movie left me wanting. The music is good and the scene with two suns is excellent...but the rest is just not interesting to me, Empire Strikes back is the pinnicle of the entire 5 movies so far, it is not something that i have carried through child hood, i could watch them all again and i would still come through it saying that Empire Strikes Back is the best. I guess i was just never that good at being a kid *shrug*

You have an interesting point @mental_nomad, although i don't think star wars is particularly intellectually stimulating, your argument was a lot more insightful

Fable seems to base his opinion on an understanding of the medium and it's shortfalls before going to see something, perhaps reading a review or hearing some friend/colleague give an opinion

But, he's right nonetheless.
I watched the movie Episode I with friends.
I expected something bad but not THAT bad..
-Dialogues, TOTALLY predictable. You foresee every single word
-Clichès hundreds years old spreaded everywhere.
-Jokes too stupid even for kids.
-Characters so damn standard that seem auto-generated by the TV.
-The battle!!! Was that a battle??? It seemed a PARTY, all coloured and
joyful!!! Come on!!!

The truth is (IMHO), the place for sci-fi are books.
Try Asimov, Simmons, or others.
Sci-fi movies are almost offensive in my PoV, with a few
pleasant exceptions (Blade Runner, Alien I and II, Mad Max!!!!)

Didn't mean to be offensive anyway, just my PoV.

Re: Hype

Originally posted by mental_nomad
Maybe I am wrong and I got the wrong grasp on an unformed idea in my head but it seems to me that while Fable is excersising a right not to partake of a particular cultural phenon....until he actually sits down and actually watches it..he can't make any of the negative claims fit. Not legitimately.

This is the "if you haven't seen it you can't really know" line of thought. I respect your right to hold to it, but I disagree. Yes, it's very easy to come up with a skewed, thoughtless, totally ludicrous opinion of a product based on nothing but media hype and predisposition, but it's also possible to read about something, maybe see a trailer or a few short clips, and make an informed decision about whether you would like it or not.

I don't like what's often called dodecaphonic music, music composed in the 12-tone-system developed by Arnold Schoenberg in the early 20th century. For years, it dominated academia, and to be one of the musical intelligentsia you had to sit through this stuff (or later manifestations of the system, including musique concrete, chance music, etc) which was dissonant, without perceivable melody (deliberately so), and somehow so much better for you as a result. Concert halls became museums since modern composers were almost entirely writing in this fashion. Now, the pendulum has finally begun swinging back away from 12-tone music, but having sampled more than a dozen compositions, I know in advance that I am not going to enjoy hardcore stuff written in that style. One of the magazines I write for does reviews of all sorts of classical new releases, and I've avoided having any of those assigned to me. Hey, but how would I know, just because, for thirty years, every dodecaphonic composition I've heard has left me cold? Should I cough up $50 at a pop to see a concert of Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire, Boulez's Structures, or Cage's But What About the Noise of Crumpling Paper?

I have a friend who trashed Harry Potter, although had never actually read it....just hated it in general principles...because it was popular

I never said I hated or liked something based on general principles of popularity. I only said (in other words) that I wouldn't be ruled by the tyranny of popular opinion. For what it's worth, I won't be ruled by it to the extent of taking an opposite stance to popular opinion, either. I just disregard it, and try to figure out where I'm going to spend my time and money, in advance, making an informed choice.

The movie "Last temptation of Christ" was boycotted and banned everywhere before the movie even hit the screens...only to find out after it was released it was nothing like assumed by Hype...

Not really applicable. A little background: Kazantzakis' book was hated by the RCC clergy far in advance, due to its very unorthodox (no pun intended) treatment of the Temptation of Christ. It's one thing, after all, to say Christ was tempted shortly before his death with the wonders of the world, and resisted. It's quite another to show Christ seeing, in a brief moment, an entire life where he spread his message, ruled, married, and raised a family. The people who hated the book churned up their congregations to boycott and protest the film, and by what you're stating as an argument, they were right to do so--because yes, the film *does* accurately portray the events of the Kazantzakis book. To that extent, they were on target. I strongly disagree with their views, but they would have been horrified to see what they had already read.

It is only as shallow as you want it to be. If you see it as superficial pulp, then so be it.....but it seems to me...and this in my point I think....that Fable...by not seeing it deliberately because of the hype.....has in fact, been controled, had his thinking done for him...

I've seen trailers, I've read reviews, and I've read portions of one of the original Star Wars scripts at George Lucas' "working mansion and estate" where LucasArts operates. (Talk about a beautiful working environment.) If I can't make an informed decision based on all this, plus my knowledge of the culture I live in, my own tastes and perceptions, then I'm not fit to call myself a human being, and should simply slap a large label on my forehead reading SPACE FOR RENT TO HIGHEST BIDDER. TELL ME WHAT TO DO, TO READ, TO WATCH, TO THINK.

Re: Re: Hype

Originally posted by fable


SPACE FOR RENT TO HIGHEST BIDDER. TELL ME WHAT TO DO, TO READ, TO WATCH, TO THINK.

WHATS WRONG WITH THIS?! Absolutely nothing as it makes it easier for intelligent people like yourself to control everyone elses opinions with big words and clever theories(though I am admittedly just as guilty). I am personally happy that not everyone wants to think and be "unique".

Aren't you at all curious to see the movies for yourself @Fable. If only so you can say "That's what has generated such a cult following?" and despair even more for all mankind?

Re: Re: Re: Hype

Originally posted by Word



WHATS WRONG WITH THIS?! Absolutely nothing as it makes it easier for intelligent people like yourself to control everyone elses opinions with big words and clever theories(though I am admittedly just as guilty). I am personally happy that not everyone wants to think and be "unique".

Er, sorry, I forgot I wasn't allowed to have my single, individual opinion, @Word, and was supposed to agree totally with the herd mind. My apologies. It was an aberation. But are you sure you're my Herd Leader today? I understood that Mental Nomad was, and that he was supposed to administer electronic shock therapy to get me to see the error of my ways. I look forward to being welcomed back into the fold by Big Brother.

(...For what it's worth, I'm not trying to be unique, or fit in, or anything. I simply am me. I gave up attempting to follow any stream, or fight against it, long ago. )