I'm not suggesting Star Wars is only for kids. In my very first post, I said it was meant for adults to enjoy too.
"Star Wars: A New Hope", "Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back", and "Star Wars: Return of the Jedi" spoke to all age groups. "Star Wars: Phantom Menace", "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones", and "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" spoke to a much younger audience. As a result of Disney taking over the franchise, I think the next "Star Wars" trilogy will speak to a much younger-younger generation. All the aspects that speak to an adult audience will be wiped clean.
"Return of the Jedi" and "Empire Strikes Back" were originally slammed by critics. "Empire Strikes Back" was criticized for being too dark. "Return of the Jedi" was criticized for advertising to kids. As the original trilogy aged, critics started to see "Empire Strikes Back" in a positive manner. It is most likely because the audience was getting older.
When it comes to the future of "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", the logical thing to do is to let them fade away. Unless an individual is exposed to other franchises, the person will not become more open-minded and worldly to other philosophies. "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" should eventually fade into the background, so that other science-fiction and fantasy writers can shine.
Our family use to have a massive "Star Wars" collection. After the movie "Revenge of the Sith" was released, we ended up throwing out and/or selling over 373 pieces. Our collection will reach zero by the end of next month. We originally had a collection of 732 pieces. Outside of the movie collection, our family has adapted a zero "Star Wars" policy. It got a little too far out of hand.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Hey, I'm not going to defend the writing in the original SW movie (look, I saw it at least a couple dozen times before Lucas ever thought of calling it "A New Hope", and I'm too old and crotchety to give in), but at least the most egregious bits had to be excised - because people were willing to tell him "no". (There's a reasonably famous anecdote about Harrison Ford threatening to hold Lucas down and make him read his own dialog out loud...)
By the time the prequels came out, nobody was telling George "no" any more. And if he still had control of the franchise, there would still be nobody to tell him "no", so along with the brilliance he can create, he would also dump all the stupid TRIBBLE he can create in there too, because he can't tell the difference. (Robert Heinlein once said that this is why all authors should have an editor - it's too hard to chop up your own baby. Read "For We, the Living" and you'll see what he meant.)
IDK of this belongs here, but there is one thing i always found "odd" in Star Wars movies and mostly games.
The Star Wars Galaxy is huge, i mean really huge there are literary hundred thousands of planets AFAIK. So why do they always end up on tattoine (or some other planet from the first three movies) at one point?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I'm sorry, this isn't my opinion. Star Wars is a kid's movie. Always has been, always will be. George Lucas has stated from the beginning that Star Wars is for the kids.
He's a total doosh too. This is the same guy who changed up the Han-Greedo scene twice when it was fine the way it was, and makes sure he wears a "Han Shot First" shirt while getting a pic taken of him on set.
Yeah, I'm glad the old man is relegated to Gene Roddenberry status with Star Wars now - might start to improve.
Anyhow, the whole point of my post is that it's not an actual "kids" movie that's Rated G. None of what I listed is stuff that you find in kids movies, in fact they're all just a blood spot away from being PG-13.
He's a total doosh too. This is the same guy who changed up the Han-Greedo scene twice when it was fine the way it was, and makes sure he wears a "Han Shot First" shirt while getting a pic taken of him on set.
Yeah, I'm glad the old man is relegated to Gene Roddenberry status with Star Wars now - might start to improve.
Anyhow, the whole point of my post is that it's not an actual "kids" movie that's Rated G. None of what I listed is stuff that you find in kids movies, in fact they're all just a blood spot away from being PG-13.
A movie doesn't have to be rated G to be a kid's movie. A 12 year old is a kid and that's who Star Wars was primarily written for. It's fantastic that Star Wars was magical enough for adults to enjoy too, but that doesn't mean it's not a kid's movie.
Lucas said it was for kids when he made it and that's something he's said regularly for the past 30 years. It just wasn't sanitized like modern kids movies are.
Look, I'm not insulting Star Wars here. I'm a massive fan and have been my entire life. I don't see how the fact that this movie was for kids is an insult.
My entire point was that the people who made that video were wrong to suggest that Star Wars is never cute or kid-friendly. It's got some harshness in it (which is great), but in all the movies, there are characters who were designed from the get-go to appeal to kids.
I just think it would be a tragedy if JJ Abrams made a Star Wars movie that didn't appeal to kids. Star Wars molded my childhood in more ways than I can count, and I'd hate to see new kids get cheated out of that because the adult fans complain.
I saw Star Wars (there weren't any sequels at the time) in the drive-in when I was four, three times (My mom was dating back then. Bringing us kids was her 'test' for potential boyfriend/husband material-it was the seventies, hey.)
as I got older, the movie held up. The un-remastered version STILL holds up. "For Kids"/"Not for kids" is kind of an empty argument-a well crafted movie can be "For Kids" without being "Childproofed" to the point of being Ferngully, while a badly written/directed monster can be annoying even with LOTS of "adult" scenes in it.
That said...something happened between about 1077 and 1986. "Return of the Jedi" wasn't as good a movie as "Star Wars" (mine own opinion, mind you-others can and do vehemently disagree.) and the reason is, in 1977 George was making a movie for ALL audiences, not JUST kids. By 1986 (ROTJ) he was making a KIDS movie with a few adult elements tossed in pretty much at random.
I speculate that the Cracked piece referenced in an earlier thread contains the germ of the reason why- George had enough money to tell the STUDIOS what to do by 1986, and a rep for blockbusters that made them WANT to listen. (between 1977 and 1986 he produced several big-profit movies for the studios-big profits, that is, unless you use Hollywood Accounting practices...)
The great difference is, in 1977 the Studio could tell George "NO", not only the studio could, but he could lose actors overnight, staff could quit and it actually, really could hurt him.
Like peer review in science, this kept him 'honest'-he actually had to WORK to get Raiders made, had to compromise to get Empire made.
There was some kind of Quality Control at work.
Flash forward on to 1999 and "The phantom plotline"-a kids' movie with all the good writing of a TRIBBLE script crossed with hundereds of millions of dollars in SFX and product tie-ins.
In 1978, Star Wars toys were a tie-in to the movie. in 1999/2000, The movie was a giant advert for the toy line and licensed products, and worse, while George was smallfry with a building rep in 1977-88, by 2000, and making a GOOD movie actually mattered to his career, he was in his sunset by the time "Phantom Menace" was being shot-he didn't NEED to be quality, it was a paycheque with a guaranteed return for his retirement "No matter what''...and it showed. He obviously worked without a script editor, without anyone who could (or would, at that point-he WAS the big studio...) tell him, "That doesn't work." or "That's really not necessary", or "Gee, George, that tosses your continuity on it's ear/destroys the magic that lets the audience suspend their disbelief."
Put into user terms, Phantom Menace was marketing toy lines and coloring books, the only thing I remember from the second movie was seeing Natalie Portman's TRIBBLE eight feet high on the movie screen, and I borrowed Revenge of the Sith from a friend after it was released to DvD.
IOW, the prequels were slightly above "Star Trek Nemesis/Insurrection" and "Waterworld."
But only barely. The standard core flaw applies to them, as applies to other Special-Effects-TRIBBLE out there: it doesn't matter HOW good your visuals are, if your script sucks and your actors can't sell it, the movie is a turkey-no matter WHAT age group you're aiming for.
An unrelated example, but it shows the kind of degradation...
Pitch Black-filmed on a shoestring, tight scripting, good casting, still gets positive reviews even from new viewers and it was made with a budget that would've made about five minutes worth of the sequel.
Chronicles of Riddick: Special Effects TRIBBLE. Weak scripting that blundered around and included incredibly unnecessary elements whose only purpose was to justify huge special effects and stunt action.
'Star Wars' vs. 'The Phantom Menace' is the same kind of decay, for many of the same reasons.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I fundamentally disagree that the prequels were "childproofed."
In Episode 1 we see a man get gutted by a lightsaber and another man get cut in half.
In Episode 2, we see a woman who was tortured by sandpeople die in her son's arms, then her son goes insane and kills an entire village - including women and children. Then we see a man get his arm cut off and another man get decapitated.
In Episode 3, Anakin slaughters a room full of children, all the heroes from the previous films are systematically murdered, and a man loses three limbs then burns alive.
What in the originals was more "dark" or "hardcore"? I just don't see it.
Don't get me wrong, here. If you didn't like the prequels, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. I just disagree that the originals were less "childproofed" than the prequels.
Well, for one thing, Scruffy, in the original movie Luke returned to the farm, to find it ablaze - and with two smoldering human skeletons outside. (Struck me at the time, too.) Later, in a bar fight, someone gets an arm lopped off by a lightsaber, and we see the arm lying on the floor in a pool of blood.
Fast-forward to TPM. Qui-Gon gets stabbed by Maul, then Maul gets chopped in half by Obi-Wan - but in both cases, it's sanitized. No blood, no intestines, Maul even gets to make a frowny face as he falls. It's as "violent" as two kids playing swordfight with sticks. And the same continues on - I haven't watched RotS for a while, but as I recall, the slaughter of the younglings was offscreen, as were most of the other deaths.
Point is, in the prequels all the "violence" and "darkness" were sanitized for your protection. Everything was cleaned up, so as not to bother the kiddies. Oh, and let's not forget those toyetic Gungans, who could have been memetic badasses (they had technology sufficient to create selectively permeable force fields, and hand-held plasma bombs - would that this had been explored). Everything was safe - which was decidedly not the case in much of the original trilogy, where pieces of a body could be lying about on the ground and even landing in an asteroid could get you eaten...
Well, for one thing, Scruffy, in the original movie Luke returned to the farm, to find it ablaze - and with two smoldering human skeletons outside. (Struck me at the time, too.) Later, in a bar fight, someone gets an arm lopped off by a lightsaber, and we see the arm lying on the floor in a pool of blood.
Fast-forward to TPM. Qui-Gon gets stabbed by Maul, then Maul gets chopped in half by Obi-Wan - but in both cases, it's sanitized. No blood, no intestines, Maul even gets to make a frowny face as he falls. It's as "violent" as two kids playing swordfight with sticks. And the same continues on - I haven't watched RotS for a while, but as I recall, the slaughter of the younglings was offscreen, as were most of the other deaths.
Point is, in the prequels all the "violence" and "darkness" were sanitized for your protection. Everything was cleaned up, so as not to bother the kiddies. Oh, and let's not forget those toyetic Gungans, who could have been memetic badasses (they had technology sufficient to create selectively permeable force fields, and hand-held plasma bombs - would that this had been explored). Everything was safe - which was decidedly not the case in much of the original trilogy, where pieces of a body could be lying about on the ground and even landing in an asteroid could get you eaten...
I think you got a good point here.
In my opinion Star Wars always never was about showing drastic violence and realism.
But i think the mood of the movies fluctuated and became more and more child friendly.
While the original trilogy was like SW:V ; SW:IV ; SW VI from dark to suitable for kids, the prequels where like made for ppl at the age of Anakin on each movie. (of course within GLs limitations)
In the end most ppl at my age see Star Wars as something like a big toy commercial (especially the prequels).
IDK but i feel silly watching the prequels, they (especaily the first one) feel too much like a kids movie.
I just hope they make the new movies/series more like SW:V.
But on the other hand i seriously hope they don't go too far with it and making it like Stargate: Universe, BSG or some other "super depressing-realistic" drama - series ppl seem to love nowadays.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Well, for one thing, Scruffy, in the original movie Luke returned to the farm, to find it ablaze - and with two smoldering human skeletons outside. (Struck me at the time, too.) Later, in a bar fight, someone gets an arm lopped off by a lightsaber, and we see the arm lying on the floor in a pool of blood.
Fast-forward to TPM. Qui-Gon gets stabbed by Maul, then Maul gets chopped in half by Obi-Wan - but in both cases, it's sanitized. No blood, no intestines, Maul even gets to make a frowny face as he falls. It's as "violent" as two kids playing swordfight with sticks. And the same continues on - I haven't watched RotS for a while, but as I recall, the slaughter of the younglings was offscreen, as were most of the other deaths.
Point is, in the prequels all the "violence" and "darkness" were sanitized for your protection. Everything was cleaned up, so as not to bother the kiddies. Oh, and let's not forget those toyetic Gungans, who could have been memetic badasses (they had technology sufficient to create selectively permeable force fields, and hand-held plasma bombs - would that this had been explored). Everything was safe - which was decidedly not the case in much of the original trilogy, where pieces of a body could be lying about on the ground and even landing in an asteroid could get you eaten...
The murder of the jawas was offscreen. The murder of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru was off screen. Obi Wan died by disappearing. And the glimpse blood on the cantina floor? Never happened again. Even in Empire (the "darkest" of the trilogy), there was zero blood when Luke's hand was severed. This was because they decided by then that a lightsaber cauterizes a wound as it cuts.
And most importantly, the single most horrific and violent scene in all of Star Wars is from the prequels (Anakin burning by the river of lava). That scene almost landed Episode 3 the highest rating in all of Star Wars (PG13). Anakin lies on that bank and screams in torment as we watch what's left of his body burn.
Seriously, watch that scene and then point out any scene in any other Star Wars film that is less "sanitized."
Don't get me wrong here. I'm an OT guy. I grew up on the originals and they will always represent Star Wars for me.
And I'm not just being contrary here. I actually hate being the guy everybody disagrees with.
But I think if we're really being honest and look at the prequels and OT side by side, it's just untrue to say the prequels were more sanitized. They were crappier in many ways, but they were no more sanitized or childproofed than the originals.
I agree with Scruffy. I think the biggest reason that people hate the prequels is that they had elements of the originals, but they lacked what gave the originals their.... originality.
Think about it this way, as Anakin lay burning in the lava, you probably didn't feel the way you were supposed to. In that moment, done in by his own hubris, he's dying in a brutal and horrific fashion, and Obi Wan, his friend, his mentor, the only father figure he's ever had, abandons him. And leaves him to his horrible fate.
But you aren't thinking about that. You aren't saying to yourself; "Oh, so that's where Darth Vader comes from". No, you're saying to yourself "YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESERVED YOU DAMN LITTLE ****".
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what separates the OT from the Prequels.
Comments
"Return of the Jedi" and "Empire Strikes Back" were originally slammed by critics. "Empire Strikes Back" was criticized for being too dark. "Return of the Jedi" was criticized for advertising to kids. As the original trilogy aged, critics started to see "Empire Strikes Back" in a positive manner. It is most likely because the audience was getting older.
When it comes to the future of "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", the logical thing to do is to let them fade away. Unless an individual is exposed to other franchises, the person will not become more open-minded and worldly to other philosophies. "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" should eventually fade into the background, so that other science-fiction and fantasy writers can shine.
Our family use to have a massive "Star Wars" collection. After the movie "Revenge of the Sith" was released, we ended up throwing out and/or selling over 373 pieces. Our collection will reach zero by the end of next month. We originally had a collection of 732 pieces. Outside of the movie collection, our family has adapted a zero "Star Wars" policy. It got a little too far out of hand.
Amen to that!
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
And I would agree wholeheartedly.
When they turned Darth Vader into a adolescent punk, the mystery behind the adult had been stripped away.
And no one asked for Uhuras first name.
The Star Wars Galaxy is huge, i mean really huge there are literary hundred thousands of planets AFAIK. So why do they always end up on tattoine (or some other planet from the first three movies) at one point?
Yeah, I'm glad the old man is relegated to Gene Roddenberry status with Star Wars now - might start to improve.
Anyhow, the whole point of my post is that it's not an actual "kids" movie that's Rated G. None of what I listed is stuff that you find in kids movies, in fact they're all just a blood spot away from being PG-13.
A movie doesn't have to be rated G to be a kid's movie. A 12 year old is a kid and that's who Star Wars was primarily written for. It's fantastic that Star Wars was magical enough for adults to enjoy too, but that doesn't mean it's not a kid's movie.
Lucas said it was for kids when he made it and that's something he's said regularly for the past 30 years. It just wasn't sanitized like modern kids movies are.
Look, I'm not insulting Star Wars here. I'm a massive fan and have been my entire life. I don't see how the fact that this movie was for kids is an insult.
My entire point was that the people who made that video were wrong to suggest that Star Wars is never cute or kid-friendly. It's got some harshness in it (which is great), but in all the movies, there are characters who were designed from the get-go to appeal to kids.
I just think it would be a tragedy if JJ Abrams made a Star Wars movie that didn't appeal to kids. Star Wars molded my childhood in more ways than I can count, and I'd hate to see new kids get cheated out of that because the adult fans complain.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I fundamentally disagree that the prequels were "childproofed."
In Episode 1 we see a man get gutted by a lightsaber and another man get cut in half.
In Episode 2, we see a woman who was tortured by sandpeople die in her son's arms, then her son goes insane and kills an entire village - including women and children. Then we see a man get his arm cut off and another man get decapitated.
In Episode 3, Anakin slaughters a room full of children, all the heroes from the previous films are systematically murdered, and a man loses three limbs then burns alive.
What in the originals was more "dark" or "hardcore"? I just don't see it.
Don't get me wrong, here. If you didn't like the prequels, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. I just disagree that the originals were less "childproofed" than the prequels.
Fast-forward to TPM. Qui-Gon gets stabbed by Maul, then Maul gets chopped in half by Obi-Wan - but in both cases, it's sanitized. No blood, no intestines, Maul even gets to make a frowny face as he falls. It's as "violent" as two kids playing swordfight with sticks. And the same continues on - I haven't watched RotS for a while, but as I recall, the slaughter of the younglings was offscreen, as were most of the other deaths.
Point is, in the prequels all the "violence" and "darkness" were sanitized for your protection. Everything was cleaned up, so as not to bother the kiddies. Oh, and let's not forget those toyetic Gungans, who could have been memetic badasses (they had technology sufficient to create selectively permeable force fields, and hand-held plasma bombs - would that this had been explored). Everything was safe - which was decidedly not the case in much of the original trilogy, where pieces of a body could be lying about on the ground and even landing in an asteroid could get you eaten...
I think you got a good point here.
In my opinion Star Wars always never was about showing drastic violence and realism.
But i think the mood of the movies fluctuated and became more and more child friendly.
While the original trilogy was like SW:V ; SW:IV ; SW VI from dark to suitable for kids, the prequels where like made for ppl at the age of Anakin on each movie. (of course within GLs limitations)
In the end most ppl at my age see Star Wars as something like a big toy commercial (especially the prequels).
IDK but i feel silly watching the prequels, they (especaily the first one) feel too much like a kids movie.
I just hope they make the new movies/series more like SW:V.
But on the other hand i seriously hope they don't go too far with it and making it like Stargate: Universe, BSG or some other "super depressing-realistic" drama - series ppl seem to love nowadays.
The murder of the jawas was offscreen. The murder of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru was off screen. Obi Wan died by disappearing. And the glimpse blood on the cantina floor? Never happened again. Even in Empire (the "darkest" of the trilogy), there was zero blood when Luke's hand was severed. This was because they decided by then that a lightsaber cauterizes a wound as it cuts.
And most importantly, the single most horrific and violent scene in all of Star Wars is from the prequels (Anakin burning by the river of lava). That scene almost landed Episode 3 the highest rating in all of Star Wars (PG13). Anakin lies on that bank and screams in torment as we watch what's left of his body burn.
Seriously, watch that scene and then point out any scene in any other Star Wars film that is less "sanitized."
Don't get me wrong here. I'm an OT guy. I grew up on the originals and they will always represent Star Wars for me.
And I'm not just being contrary here. I actually hate being the guy everybody disagrees with.
But I think if we're really being honest and look at the prequels and OT side by side, it's just untrue to say the prequels were more sanitized. They were crappier in many ways, but they were no more sanitized or childproofed than the originals.
Think about it this way, as Anakin lay burning in the lava, you probably didn't feel the way you were supposed to. In that moment, done in by his own hubris, he's dying in a brutal and horrific fashion, and Obi Wan, his friend, his mentor, the only father figure he's ever had, abandons him. And leaves him to his horrible fate.
But you aren't thinking about that. You aren't saying to yourself; "Oh, so that's where Darth Vader comes from". No, you're saying to yourself "YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESERVED YOU DAMN LITTLE ****".
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what separates the OT from the Prequels.