cant find the thread, but google produced this site:
http://www.spookybug.com/origins/dune.html
(mind you its full of spoilers)
cant find the thread, but google produced this site:
http://www.spookybug.com/origins/dune.html
(mind you its full of spoilers)
nope, wait. found the thread (also spoiler heavy)
http://boards.theforce.net/The_Star_Wars_Saga/b10456/12073632/p1
Very interesting.
Although I have pretty much read this thread and thats it (just the one in the link) I have to take a neutral opinion and suggest that both creators were just re-using old mythology and story telling techniques, instead of outright plaguerism.
For example, the Luke/Paul connection; it's just an archetypal character in use (like those that Serenity employs, had to get that one in there), with parellels like Gurney and Obi-Wan as the Wizards, and so many sci-fi/fantasty franchises use a psuedo religous cult that employ magic that alot of those points are simply coincidence and the result of conventional story telling.
Originally posted by Alliance
Everyone needs to assert their masculinity by kissing another man now and again....and Sith needs to be kissed by a man 🙂
😱 ❌
😛
Originally posted by exanda kane
I'll start with that point. It's wrong; no one in their right mind could even put any of the Prequel films, or even all of the originals on a pedastel that high, and if they do, they must be some of the most drall, grey people with little to no intelligence about them. I mean, I'm talking cretins of neandertal taste here.
Hey Exanda.
I think you took my entire post as being directed at you.
Other than the first part about why I like StarWars PT better than movies that ARE better made, it was a general post. 😛
You know, my opinion given in an opinion thread. I suppose you can debate facts, but not opinions really.
But you bring up good points, so lets address them:
Originally posted by exanda kane
I'll start with that point. It's wrong; no one in their right mind could even put any of the Prequel films, or even all of the originals on a pedastel that high, and if they do, they must be some of the most drall, grey people with little to no intelligence about them. I mean, I'm talking cretins of neandertal taste here.I'll continue and conclude with my argument after I've shoved your ill founded and porly concieved statements later.
You must have thought that when I said: "Regular movie going audiences ate them up... a testament of this is that both TPM and ROTS are now in the top 10 films of all time. (and all six SW films are in the top 25)"....that I was referring to some poll, or some movie magazine rank.
No.
I'm talking about box office.
1 Titanic $600,788,188
2 Star Wars $460,998,007
3 Shrek 2 $441,226,247
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial $435,110,554
5 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace $431,088,301
6 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $423,315,812
7 Spider-Man $403,706,375 2002
8 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith $380,270,577
9 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King $377,027,325
10 Spider-Man 2 $373,585,825
11 The Passion of the Christ $370,782,930
12 Jurassic Park $357,067,947
13 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $341,786,758
14 Finding Nemo $339,714,978
15 Forrest Gump $329,694,499
16 The Lion King $328,541,776
17 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone $317,575,550
18 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring $314,776,170
19 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones $310,676,740
20 Return of the Jedi $309,306,177
21 Independence Day $306,169,268
22 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl $305,413,918
23 The Sixth Sense $293,506,292
24 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe $291,710,957
25 The Empire Strikes Back $290,475,067
So I was 100% correct. Movie audiences loved or enjoyed the prequels, two of them in fact are now in the top ten of all time.
Your personal feelings that those dollars equal: "drall, grey people with little to no intelligence about them. I mean, I'm talking cretins of neandertal taste here." notwithstanding, it's fair to say that the films were HUGELY successful with audiences.
Those who "hated" them or "sat back in horror" after a screening of TPM surely wouldn't come back again after the bottom fell out... after their "childhood had been raped."
And if they did, it would only be once or at the most twice to make sure the film really sucked.
Many people relate stories of seeing TPM 5 or 6, up to 10 times even. Explain that one. 😛
Originally posted by exanda kane
A critics opinion on The Phantom Menace - http://www.slate.com/id/28553A critics opinion of The Attack of the Clones -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020510/REVIEWS/205100305/1023A critics opinion of Revenge of the Sith -
http://www.slate.com/id/2118604As a note to anyone who may think I generally hate the Prequels, I'll tell you now that the last half of Revenge of the Sith is generally some of the best stuff since Empire Strikes Back. I don't "hate" any movie, nor do I feel there's any point wasting time "hating" a film. I am just gobsmacked by how such a visionary director like Lucas managed to come up with Episodes 1,2 and the first half of 3, especially with the resources he had at his disposal. It's a great disapointment.
Just for fun, I'll take your second source Roger Ebert, and post his review of TPM: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990517/REVIEWS/905170301/1023
You don't have to read it all, but it ends with:
"As surely as Anakin Skywalker points the way into the future of "Star Wars," so does "The Phantom Menace" raise the curtain on this new freedom for filmmakers. And it's a lot of fun. The film has correctly been given the PG rating; it's suitable for younger viewers and doesn't depend on violence for its effects. As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day."
And includes the words: "an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking."
Also TPM: http://www.reelviews.net/movies/s/sw99.html (3/12 stars out of 4)
AOTC-http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/2002/2002-05-15-star-wars-review.htm USA Today 3 1/2 out 4 stars
A quote: "No screen fantasy-adventure in recent memory has the showmanship of Clones' last 45 minutes."-Mike Clark, USA Today
"It's dark but has wonderfully funny moments; you care about the characters; and the action and special effects are first-rate."-Paul Clinton (CNN.com) http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/15/ca.s02.review.clinton.star.wars/index.html
"At the end, when the now computerized Yoda finally reveals his martial artistry, the film ascends to a kinetic life so teeming that even cranky adults may rediscover the quivering kid inside." -Richard Corliss TIME Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002323-1,00.html (awesome six page review)
Don't even get me started on ROTS.
"It's good. I mean really good. Is ''Sith" the best of all the ''Star Wars" films? Let the arguing begin. But I'll go on record as saying that it is, without question, the most emotionally powerful of the six."-Ty Burr, Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=6889
"George Lucas has achieved what few artists do; he has created and populated a world of his own. His "Star Wars" movies are among the most influential, both technically and commercially, ever made. And they are fun. If he got bogged down in solemnity and theory in "Episode II: Attack of the Clones," the Force is in a jollier mood this time, and "Revenge of the Sith" is a great entertainment."- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050519/REVIEWS/50503002/1023
Ebert and hiis partner Roeper also gave the film their pattened: Two Thumbs Up review.
"This is by far the best film in the more recent trilogy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed. That's right (and my inner 11-year-old shudders as I type this): it's better than 'Star Wars.'"
"Even as he has pushed back into the Jedi past, Mr. Lucas has been inventing the cinematic future, and the sheer beauty, energy and visual coherence of "Revenge of the Sith" is nothing short of breathtaking."
"Mr. Lucas has surpassed Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg in his exploitation of the new technology's aesthetic potential."
-A.O. Scott, New York Times (last 3 quotes)http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/movies/16star.html?ex=1273896000&en=de80e3d3d9553842&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Whew! 😛
Now that wasn't meant as an attack, more of an explanation of how I formed my opinions.
1.) The movies were a huge hit with normal audiences.
They hold box office records, which are so high that it goes beyond the "fans supporting the franchise" idea. They gross just as much if not more than all other movies on the list that are liked by every type of person, not just "fanboys." (i.e. Forrest Gump or Shrek made just as much money and were watched and loved by all.)
2.) Critics had good impressions of them.
For every Major News Source detractor of EpI or EpII, you can find a Major News Source supporter. For EpIII it's unanimous: the film is great. It's one of the best SW's ever and was a big FU to all of the Lucas bashers.
3.) Starwars fans are split on the Prequel Trilogy.
And so here we are. I have my opinions, you have yours. Alliance (for the most part) agrees with me, Vintage agrees with you. Paul is somewhere in the middle I suppose.
This is normal, good, and as it should be.
And here we are all expressing our opinions.
But lets not cloud our opinions with ideas that just aren't true, like the Prequels were: "horrible", "critical failures", "loathed by audiences", and that if you enjoyed them you're " a fool with no concept of taste" etc...
They either worked for you, or didn't, or fell somewhere in between.
But they were commercially and critically successful, for the most part.
No, reading the Dune novels it is VERY clear that Lucas took a lot of ideas from Dune. I'm sure he treated it as source material as he did with Greek myths but also LOTR.
The sand planet, the special monk like class (Bene Gesserit - Jedi), the nobility ruling classes (like the Alderaan royalty), Jabba is Leto II... there's an endless list of little details as well. So he didn't copy it, that is clear but I am sure he was very inspired by it.
Also the great influencing war in the past (SW- Clone Wars, Dune - Butlerian Jihad) is such a concept. The Butlerian Jihad was a war on machines, eventually won by man and leading them to never be so dependent on machines. Heck, that's your PT clones vs. battle droids right there.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm talking about box office.1 Titanic $600,788,188
$460,998,007
2 [b]Star Wars
3 Shrek 2 $441,226,247
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial $435,110,554
5 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace $431,088,301
6 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $423,315,812
7 Spider-Man $403,706,375 2002
8 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith $380,270,577
9 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King $377,027,325
10 Spider-Man 2 $373,585,825
11 The Passion of the Christ $370,782,930
12 Jurassic Park $357,067,947
13 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $341,786,758
14 Finding Nemo $339,714,978
15 Forrest Gump $329,694,499
16 The Lion King $328,541,776
17 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone $317,575,550
18 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring $314,776,170
19 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones $310,676,740
20 Return of the Jedi $309,306,177
21 Independence Day $306,169,268
22 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl $305,413,918
23 The Sixth Sense $293,506,292
24 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe $291,710,957
25 The Empire Strikes Back $290,475,067So I was 100% correct. Movie audiences loved or enjoyed the prequels, two of them in fact are now in the top ten of all time.[/B]
to be fair, given inflation along with rip-off movie prices, you cannot compare movie success over a span of 30 years in simple dollar amount. what is relevant is the amount of tickets sold. now consider the average movie price from 77-83, which was around $5 i believe, if that.
Originally posted by sithsaber4081 Titanic $600,788,188
$460,998,007
2 [b]Star Wars
3 Shrek 2 $441,226,247
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial $435,110,554
5 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace $431,088,301
6 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $423,315,812
7 Spider-Man $403,706,375 2002
8 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith $380,270,577
9 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King $377,027,325
10 Spider-Man 2 $373,585,825
11 The Passion of the Christ $370,782,930
12 Jurassic Park $357,067,947
13 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $341,786,758
14 Finding Nemo $339,714,978
15 Forrest Gump $329,694,499
16 The Lion King $328,541,776
17 Harry Potter and the Philosiphers Stone $317,575,550
18 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring $314,776,170
19 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones $310,676,740
20 Return of the Jedi $309,306,177
21 Independence Day $306,169,268
22 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl $305,413,918
23 The Sixth Sense $293,506,292
24 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe $291,710,957
25 The Empire Strikes Back $290,475,067So I was 100% correct. Movie audiences loved or enjoyed the prequels, two of them in fact are now in the top ten of all time.
[/B]
That list in no way tells you people loved the films.
They went and saw them, of course, but that simply shows that people go and see films in the summer, and a Star Wars film is an event film with a very big heritage. Hell, the majority of the budget is spent on advertising and promotion, kids toys, fast food meals, tv slots, internet advertising, no wonder people went to see it.
Originally posted by Schecter
not to mention that going to the movies was more of a formal event when theaters were first doing business. so i would assume that people went alot less frequently back then (not the 70's, im talking about oooold cinema)
The 30s, 40s and early 50s aren't labelled the golden age of cinema for nothing, maybe I misunderstand your post, but cinema was at its busiest back then, and has and probably will never reach those heights again.
Originally posted by exanda kane
The 30s, 40s and early 50s aren't labelled the golden age of cinema for nothing, maybe I misunderstand your post, but cinema was at its busiest back then, and has and probably will never reach those heights again.
like i said, it was a formal affair. i just decided on a whim to see ep1 about 12 times in the theater. you didnt do that sort of thing back then. back then you made plans, dressed up, and went as if you were going to a fine restaurant or broadway show. so while the quality was greater, ill bet the frequency in which people went to the theater was far less. thats what i meant.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
[B]Just for fun, I'll take your second source Roger Ebert, and post his review of TPM: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990517/REVIEWS/905170301/1023
You don't have to read it all, but it ends with:
"As surely as Anakin Skywalker points the way into the future of "Star Wars," so does "The Phantom Menace" raise the curtain on this new freedom for filmmakers. And it's a lot of fun. The film has correctly been given the PG rating; it's suitable for younger viewers and doesn't depend on violence for its effects. As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day."
And includes the words: "an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking."
Fair enough. Alot of critics applauded it, some like Roger Ebert do know what they are talking about. But then you read some of these comments.
A quote: "No screen fantasy-adventure in recent memory has the showmanship of Clones' last 45 minutes."-Mike Clark, USA Today
No one doubts there is showmanship in Attack of the Clones. In fact, that is all there is; there is no substance, nothing behind the CGI effects.
"It's dark but has wonderfully funny moments; you care about the characters; and the action and special effects are first-rate."-Paul Clinton (CNN.com) http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/15/ca.s02.review.clinton.star.wars/index.html
A personal reception here; but this critic has given little else. I simply did not care for the characters in Clones. Fullstop. It's debatable, but when you know the outcome of the story already, you've picked your squad, know who lives and who dies. You really have to wonder what kind of a novel experiment the PT was. The money involved was obviously a collateral result.
"At the end, when the now computerized Yoda finally reveals his martial artistry, the film ascends to a kinetic life so teeming that even cranky adults may rediscover the quivering kid inside." -Richard Corliss TIME Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1002323-1,00.html (awesome six page review)
I hate to just disregard this "review", but it's not an analysis of the film, it's an overview of the film before it's theactrical release.
Don't even get me started on ROTS."It's good. I mean really good. Is ''Sith" the best of all the ''Star Wars" films? Let the arguing begin. But I'll go on record as saying that it is, without question, the most emotionally powerful of the six."-Ty Burr, Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=6889
It's certainly arguable, but that doesn't concern me. I don't watch Star Wars for the love scenes when Lucas is directing. Golly, the dialogue is terrible.
"George Lucas has achieved what few artists do; he has created and populated a world of his own. His "Star Wars" movies are among the most influential, both technically and commercially, ever made. And they are fun. If he got bogged down in solemnity and theory in "Episode II: Attack of the Clones," the Force is in a jollier mood this time, and "Revenge of the Sith" is a great entertainment."- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050519/REVIEWS/50503002/1023
This says nothing that I did not already say.
"This is by far the best film in the more recent trilogy, and also the best of the four episodes Mr. Lucas has directed. That's right (and my inner 11-year-old shudders as I type this): it's better than 'Star Wars.'"
Simply put, no, it's not better than Star Wars. The last half...yes, the last half takes it far, but then we remember the rushed first hour and, oh dear god, we have to disagree.
"Even as he has pushed back into the Jedi past, Mr. Lucas has been inventing the cinematic future, and the sheer beauty, energy and visual coherence of "Revenge of the Sith" is nothing short of breathtaking."
Of course it is, but as I said earlier, where is the sense of Star Wars adventure?
"Mr. Lucas has surpassed Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg in his exploitation of the new technology's aesthetic potential."
That certainly is a lovely quote. Why? Because it's totally true. Not even old Georges mother could stop him exploiting these new technologies while completely disregarding the attitude and spirit which made his first two Star Wars films so unique.
Spielberg and Jackson have shown that they can integrate CGI into there films when and where appropriate; they don't puff there chest and display it like some boastful child or horny peacock, they use it in storytelling, they don't let it become the story.
Originally posted by Schecter
like i said, it was a formal affair. i just decided on a whim to see ep1 about 12 times in the theater. you didnt do that sort of thing back then. back then you made plans, dressed up, and went as if you were going to a fine restaurant or broadway show. so while the quality was greater, ill bet the frequency in which people went to the theater was far less. thats what i meant.
Sorry, I still misunderstand you. The last part that is.
The frequency in which people went to the theater was far more than today. Society is so very different these days, we being so casual, that it would hardly be a large factor.
Of course, you wouldn't see the same film twelve times back then, but the output of the major productions companies these days is around 12 a year. Back in the golden age of Hollywood, output of a major studio would be 52 films a year, yes, that's 1 film per week. Films like Star Wars weren't made back then.
interesting
yeah, lots of factors were different i guess. all the more reason why the success of films cant really be directly compared over a long timespan. imho if a more proper formula were applied, ANH would be figured as the most successful film of all time. titanic does not compare, and doesnt even belong in it's shadow, let alone overshadowing.
Well, how good a film is does not really come into it. I mean, I really really can't watch Gone With the Wind, but statistically counting inflation it holds all the records. I mean pretty much everyone saw it. There's no doubt the film has calibre, but I really don't want to be the one watching it.
The Empire Strikes Back is my favourite Star Wars flick by a long, long way, and it's also hailed by critics as the best Star Wars film, but it didn't recapture the success of the original.