[Luis Dias]

I'll just point out my bemusement that someone like you can't tell the difference between expressing the boredom of someone's (or some place's) existence within a movie universe and boring the audience with it. Cracks me up. Or saddens me? I don't care too much anymore.

[Phantom Hoover]

It's not a strawman when it's actually what you're saying.

[NGTM-1R]

It's not a strawman when it's actually what you're saying.

This may be a radical concept to you but just because a scene is necessary does not make it entertaining.

[Phantom Hoover]

And just because a scene doesn't have lasers and explosions doesn't mean it's boring. Did you know that there are entire films in which people just walk around some planet and talk to each other and nothing explodes at all? I've even heard that some crazy ****ers watch those films!

[StarSlayer]

I think Luis made it pretty clear he doesn't want Michael Bay, that's a dead argument.

Perhaps the novelty of having such a well portrayed environment as opposed to Shatner chewing on styrofoam scenery in a studio also colors my appreciation of the Tatoonie segment.  The Original Trilogy did a fantastic job of using shooting on location to sell the environment fully, Luke didn't have to whine about how course sand is we could draw our own conclusions.  Still I cannot think of any redundant or wasted scenes (though it sounds like they hacked those out) and in comparison with Lucas' work on the prequels it was very well directed.  They even had a couple scenes to liven it up with the Jawa Ion Blunderbuss ambush and Luke getting jumped by Sand people.  I dunno, if you felt the arc was boring then I guess we will leave it at that.

[NGTM-1R]

And just because a scene doesn't have lasers and explosions doesn't mean it's boring. Did you know that there are entire films in which people just walk around some planet and talk to each other and nothing explodes at all? I've even heard that some crazy ****ers watch those films!

Did you know that you're literally making **** up here?

I mean, we can do a movie where at half-hour intervals a bike with no rider goes past two people chatting over coffee and make it interesting, but that's irrelevant to the point I made, and that Luis made. Watching Luke mess with the droids and catch a part of the message to Obi-Wan is necessary to the myth arc. We have to see what he is; but the whole point of what he is that he's not the hero yet, and in fact, kind of annoying.

So he's not entertaining. Because he's not supposed to be does not mean that it is not true.

[Phantom Hoover]

If you just rathole down the definition of 'entertaining' to something so narrow and contextless then yes. If you do something crazy like look at films as a holistic story then it's completely asinine.

Are you claiming that Star Wars would be a more entertaining film if the Tatooine section was cut out?

[Phantom Hoover]

I think Luis made it pretty clear he doesn't want Michael Bay, that's a dead argument.

If Luis is going to criticise films for having a 30 minute span without a gunfight then people will point out that this is exactly what's provided by a shallow, paceless action flick. If he has a problem with that he can discuss it like a damn adult rather than ordering us not to bring it up.

[StarSlayer]

Considering that he has not articulated what he would prefer instead, continuing to infer that he means gunfights and explosions, especially when he denied wanting some Bayesq antics, does not make a valid argument.

[Luis Dias]

Now Phantom Hoover is entertaining himself saying I said **** that I never said.

Where did I say "no gunfights -> BOOOORING".

I'll say this for the last time: It is eminently possible to convey to the audience the emotion of a dead boring desert landscape without any future prospects without boring the audience. Just as you can portray death in movies without killing the audience. "Ceci nes't pas un pipe". Ok, now this is the part where I draw a map or what?

In fact, picking an unrelated movie, I think the best movie that has ever captured the essence of the atmosphere of the surroundings of the protagonists in the most dynamic, relentless, poignant and artful manner is undoubtedly Children of Men. And in that movie, the protagonist is boring as **** at least in the beggining. He even strides to be a boring no one. And the last thing I'd call that first arc is "boring".

If PH insists on his misinterpretations or whatever, I'll ignore him henceforth. There's a limit to sillyness that I'm willing to suffer.

[MP-Ryan]

ANH gave us cliched characters with a wider range of supporting cast.

You do realise that a major reason why the OT characters and plot seem so clichéd is cause everyone has been copying them for the last 35 years, right?

ANH's cliches date at least back to the 19th century, and possibly much earlier.  Many of its tropes come from classic literature, not least among it authors like Stevenson and Dumas, and later even Tolkein.  Yes, they've been used heavily since but they were long-used cliches even when ANH was first released.

On the subject of boring/exciting:  my wife has been very bored both by TESB after Hoth and the whole middle of ROTJ.  There is a LOT in the OT about which a general audience simply will not care.

[karajorma]

So? As I pointed out, there are lots of people who wouldn't like Citizen Kane. You're making a classic appeal to popularity fallacy here.

[MP-Ryan]

So? As I pointed out, there are lots of people who wouldn't like Citizen Kane. You're making a classic appeal to popularity fallacy here.

No I'm not;  I'm pointing out that ONE PERSON happens to agree with Luis to illustrate a point that much of the love of the OT doesn't hold up to new viewers, just like much of TFA may not 30 years from today.  TFA contains a lot of action; the OT films have a lot of boring interludes.  The takeaway point is that none of these films are anywhere near perfect, and the OT films are no superior exercise in film-making.  They have not-insubstantial flaws, too.

[karajorma]

You're pointing out that ONE PERSON doesn't like parts of the film and using that to claim that the film isn't liked by new fans. Fine, I picked the wrong logical fallacy but anecdotal evidence isn't proof either. There are plenty of new viewers who DO love the original trilogy too. Hell, if the problem is that OT has parts that are boring, why are there so many kids going to watch the new films who love OT? They should be the hardest audience of all to please in this day and age. I know plenty of kids who love OT. And if you can get them to sit through 30 minutes of "boring" instead of going off to play on a console then the film must be doing something right.

[swashmebuckle]

The takeaway point is that none of these films are anywhere near perfect, and the OT films are no superior exercise in film-making.  They have not-insubstantial flaws, too.

Liking TFA better in one thing, but I honestly don't see how you could argue that TFA represents film making on par with ANH. ANH was an unprecedented landmark achievement that profoundly influenced countless other movies and works in other media. TFA was a solid example of Disney's strategy of picking up and milking the biggest intellectual properties of the day. It seems like you would have to manicure some completely ahistorical viewpoint to hold them in equal regard.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

-snip-

It is perfectly possible for ANH to be a superior exercise in film-making, and have TFA turn out to be the better overall film.  Which was my original point way back there - that, compared apples-to-apples without room for nostalgia, worldbuilding, tech achievements, etc, TFA is the best / most entertaining Star Wars film to date.

Aside:  I'm also NOW tempted to award it this title purely because I just finished the OT Blu-Ray release and **** GEORGE LUCAS.  Seriously, injecting Hayden Christensen and changing the celebration music in RoTJ alone are grounds for taking away the crown.  Jesus.

[Mongoose]

That's exactly why I'm praying that Disney will throw its ample weight around at some point and finally get a properly-restored theatrical cut for all us bespectacled nerds to slobber over.

[Sushi]

Mongoose you may be interested in the "Despecialized Edition" of Star Wars, which I believe attempts to do exactly that. I understand there's also dozens of fan-edits with various mixes of original release and later edits but I haven't seen any of them and couldn't tell you which if any are worth watching.

It's annoying because the special editions *did* make some nice changes (e.g. the windows in cloud city are gorgeous) alongside the horrifyingly dumb ones. I'm still not sure which to show my kids.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, I have heard about that, though I haven't endeavored to track it down yet.  Something else of note is the Legacy Edition, which is one man's literal decade-plus quest to do amazing things to the original film.

[StarSlayer]

Seriously VHS on a 40 year old Sony CRT TV is best format.

Embrace the scan lines.  Search your feelings, you know it to be true.


Mixing CGI during a period where it was not mature and ages poorly with the original practical effects that hold up even today was a terrible idea.  Granted some of the additions still look nice but others really depreciated immensely.