Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Living my life, fighting my war.
And before I confuse your little mind, I didn't mean that George Lucas said that, but that you are using a statement of George, which in all honesty, is moot.
George Lucas is the creator of Star Wars and whatever he says goes, even if it's ludicrous. Fortunatedly in this matter, he makes perfect sense. That's end of, you're wrong and your argument is shite. Fact. And yes, Star Wars "works" as it is, as a collection of components from all over the place, fact, BUT it is the fact that Star Wars is a Western that gives it such a place in the social conscious. Also a fact.
If you look statistically at the popularity of the Western, one of the most prolific and popular genres in the history of cinema you will see the slowdecline of the Western over the years. The Western in it's natural form flounders and dies yet it feeds certain tributaries; Sci-Fi and the Road Movie are among the more prominent. Star Wars takes the place of the Western in the social conciousness. Fact.
The Sci-Fi elements of Star Wars stand out to people because as I have said, it is a Western in futuristic garb. That means that the visual iconography of the franchise is futuristic, a la your assumption (with no proof remember). Analogy for you, take Blade Runner yet again. It has iconography we associate with science fiction, yet it is actually a film noir detective story exploring many things. So basically (I don't want to overcomplicate things for you!) your argument consists of bollocks and a whole lot of waffle.
It's Prequels* and how can you pretend to be having a debate about genre in Star Wars when you don't even understand the concept of The Man With No Name. George Lucas, yet again fortunatedly, reveals that Boba Fett is the Man With No Name of SW mythos. Fact. So, fyi, you're a dolt, leave now.
Well you haven't given much of a considered argument yet.
Are you one of the people who bought the highly sought after Idiot's Guide to being an Idiot? That's such a ridiculous opinion I'd almost shit my Topman boxers if I didn't pity you. It's a shallow opinion that is really, a big bunch of bollocks.
No, it's still George Lucas in charge over the direction of SW I'm afraid. Fact, you're wrong and if I didn't mention before, you speak an awful lot of bollocks and STILL, no proof. Get some kiddo.
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Living my life, fighting my war.
The unfortunate problem with this is that HE has allowed these other stores into his universe, and thus has made them a part of his story. If it weren't for the fact that he has argued that the EU is separate from his stories then I would hold his opinion in higher regards, but he likes to not only allow these stories to exist, but approve them as a part of his story, then says "Oh, it's not part of my story."
This is getting old: Pay attention to what HAS been created vs what is said to have been created, you WILL see a stark difference.
Literature is a body of usually (Not always) written works related by subject-matter, by language or place of origin, or by dominant cultural standards.[1] Literally translated, the word means "acquaintance with letters" (from Latin littera letter). In Western culture the most basic literary types include poetry and prose, fiction and non-fiction.
Books, Movies, Radio programs, and Video games can all be classified as literature, because ALL are written works in the beginning. Ever heard of a script?
Read the beginning of this post.
__________________
Last edited by Mandrag Ganon on Feb 18th, 2008 at 08:23 PM
Once again, you have over stepped your mark chicklet. The EU (Yes, this is an EU forum, but that's your mistake) is moot when considering what Star Wars would be like without Jedi; the Western aspects caused Star Wars to be a success, thus the EU was created. What any EU author or so forth has said cannot contradict what the success and appeal of Star Wars was in the beginning...end of. It's not a chicken or the egg situation kiddo.
What is this?
Wikipedia much? That has nothing and absolutetly nothing to do with the debate at hand, but then, I shouldn't be suprised as you have expressed zero valid points. Try again.
Yeah, that's right. Except it's a lot of bollocks on your behalf. You seem to be unaware of the practices within the industries you are talking about. I'd highlight film (include TV if you will) here, seeing as the script doesn't always come first. Take Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom for instance; Spielberg basically cobbled together a bunch of action scenes and stunts and made a narrative out of it; improvisation is a stock trade for some, the way a package is made by producers and taken to Studio executives.
Oh, and by the way, that's not even taking into consideration the final product. Different mediums. No two ways about it. I was joking about the Idiot's Guide to being an Idiot at first, but I must half seriously ask now, have you read it?
The sheer fact that you are constantly shuffling your pathetic argument about and can't rebute anything I sau is comical, tragic even. I don't like one sided arguments, please, for my sake too, cobble together something reasonable. If you have a view on something, keep it, or at least concede. Don't change your argument without addressing your old ones shortcomings first. I expect a funny rebuttle next.
Last edited by exanda kane on Feb 18th, 2008 at 09:03 PM
Of course it wouldn't be the same kiddo, you should have listened to Schecter earlier, and could have saved yourself the trouble. But the fact is, a lack of a pious collective of warrior monks would not, by default, mean Star Wars would revert to a generic Sci-Fi franchise. It isn't particuarly complex generically, but it has more layers than that; example being the generic elements of the Western.
While it is by no means alone that the Western influence allows Star Wars to rise above peers, it is certainly the most significant and prolific argument for its success. Glad you saw reason by the end of it.
look up there at the 5 things I posted... star wars fulfills each and every one. even if some of them dont have anything to do with jedis, they are all VERY Star Wars. This makes star wars an Epic...
and In an epic, there is always the temptation of evil for the Protagonist.
I also didnt say that Westerns are not epic at all, I just said that it wouldnt have quite the same kind of protagonist as an epic without jedis. Han Solo is not an epic samurai/Achilles type as much as Skywalker is, because Han Solo is not perfect, he is more pirat-y and scoundrelly and there arent very many skilled blaster types in the prequell (maybe padme, but she isnt exactly protagonist material either)
And If you dont call star wars a piece of literature, I dont know what you would call it. it is one of the greatest stories of our generation and the generation before ours. kids will be outside playing with spraypainted dowels long after we are dead.
Star Wars wouldnt be so popular if it was just Special Effects and good sword coreography. If high noon was just guns would it be epic to a degree? No, all good movies must have a good story, which, any good story, I call literature.
ANd my reference to lotr was to the book, not to the movie.
also, the lightsaber embodies the samurai sword, the Spartan sword, the Roman Sword, the European Broadsword, in the fact that that is the most passionate and bold way to express conflict.
Have you ever seen a gunfight give you goosbumps (aside from the matrix please) Like the one part when Luke draws on the darkside to defeat vader?
For god's sake, use the plural of Jedi correctly; Jedi. I'm afraid it makes you look like an idiot and affects anything else you say.
You mean you used wikipedia? Here you use "Star Wars," as an adjective, yet fail to describe what that entails. What does Star Wars mean? Give the parameters for what you mean and EXPLAIN. Don't copy and paste from wiki; you look silly and ill-informed, especially when you have something like sustained elevation in there (Star Wars is NOT a piece of prose). If you want to shove Star Wars into the literary parameters of the Epic, then go and beat yourself up over it; at the end of the day, while it may contain elements of the Epic (or elements trying to aspire to an Epic, it is a very small part of the overall composition of the franchise. I repeat, it's a Western, fact.
You mean the protagonist is flawed? Yeah, great, that suits Anakin Skywalker, of course! It must be an Epic. Err, no. Actually the capacity of for good and bad is inherent in tonnes of genres, so it's not particuarly clever to mention one and claim it to be fact. Classical Greek Tragedy involves a tragic flaw in a character, while Classical Medieval Tragedies involve the curse of fate; given that SW shrugs off fate as The Force, then it doesn't leave much room for logical analysis in the character department. Again, you speak ill-informed. And the documentary is wank.
I
Again, I was clarifying for you that the traits of the Epic have become inherent in storytelling (note, not literature in this case, considering a great majority of Greek tragedies were told orally.) You aren't being clear on the type of protagonist you're on about now. I think you mean Han Solo is a Cowboy, and Luke Skywalker is the innocent aspiring cowboy. The relationship between Luke and Han is a tension inherent in Westerns. Plus, Pirat-y? What the hell are you on about.
Fact that you are characterisating people simply because of the weapons they use is funny too. Come on, admit it. You don't have any welll formed opinions on this matter. You can't watch one documentary, cope and paste from wiki and expect to know what you are talking about.
Maybe...call it like a Film? As, taking into consideration inflation, it is still the second highest grossing film in the US ever and is also the most important thing in US film history when considering "New, New Hollywood."
Apart from that, I'll say again that it isn't literature. It has a narrative from which the audience can place a story chronologically. Doesn't mean it is literature, especially when you realise that it takes as much from futuristic pulp serials as it does old myth, but mostly from the Western. In other words, SW is a Western set in front of a pulp mythos; not dense enough to have a commednable mythology,but at the same time not trying to attain one. Again, your reasoning is pretty pathetic for someone trying to debate issues of genre, especially switching mediums like hopping on different feet when it suits you.
You have seen A New Hope, right? What don't you stop trying to tell me what I already know (although I was unaware of good sword choreography in the original SW - which made it popular rememberr). Again, it shows bad reasoning from you. Come up with a good argument please, I can't run this show on my own.
Except that you're wrong. Call it what you want, but it makes you look silly.
For instance, would you have say a bad story, i.e. prose, published in a book was a bad story? You're muddling your mediums again. Film critcism was problematic when high-brow literary criticisms were used, because they are different mediums and even stories constructed from narratives if they are displayed as films, are films.
I realised kiddo.
Please, please, please get yourself a good argument together. This is embarassing.
Last edited by exanda kane on Feb 19th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
You're talking about a subjective opinion there and I hope you aren't expecting me to take that seriously. I'll indulge myself though. I think Return of the Jedi is a medicore film, containing too many cringeworthy moments that distract from the good parts, i.e. not the story. And no, that moment isn't great nor does it give me goosebumps, plus the camera technique Kasdan tries to use is also silly. You talk about goosebumps, you gotta talk about the moment William DeFoe dies in Platoon, or the restaraunt scene in the Godfather, or the famous scene in Rear Window. That's good cinema.
actually look at any high school literature book and it will say these 5 points about epic poems. not just from wikipedia.
the samurai word for "hero" as in the way we use protagonist, is "Jadai" and is in fact where George Lucas got the name for Jedis. THe lightsaber was originally going to be the samurai sword, but he then decided to give them a weapon that could be used to deflect bullets and changed it to the lightsaber (the past paragraph is from statements from george lucas)
the story of star wars is indeed epic as it fills all of the necessary requirements for epic poetry.
sure, its not literature, but put it down on a peice of paper in stanzas, and youve got epic poetry....
so It is my belief that if you will not call it epic, at least call it the greatest story of our generation.
I told you to put together a concise argument, and you post this?
Why are you telling me this? That has no bearing on your pitful argument whatsoever.
It doesn't fulfill sustained elevation, as I will mention AGAIN. I've already shown that the "requirements" aren't simply limited to the Western, and when considering we have a FILM on our hands, they take on an altgother different light.
So you've changed your argument again? Keep it steady for gods sake, you're pretty poor at this game. Star Wars isn't epic poetry; get over your love affair with a film franchise.
It isn't an "epic," both in the sense of epic poetry of Homer and of the 50's Historical Epics. It contains elements of the Epic that are universal in genre. That proves nothing. You simply cannot find anything to criticise in my argument, end it there. Again, Star Wars, not really my generation, nor I could predict it was yours. It's a Pulp Mythos. Take it or leave it, but as far as films are concerned, there are much stronger "stories" out there.
Again, you kinda fall in a ditch and die in slow agony. Niiiiiiice.
So if Star wars isnt one of the greatest stories of all time, why dont you go find your 'high noon' debating forum and keep your crappy cynical ideas out of this. did you even click on that history channel vid link?
didnt think so...
there arent very many stronger films out there. name a few
so those are also literary greats.... and they arent of "our time" like i said before...
so what other movies can you think of that might be considered epics?
You've gone off topic kiddo. But I'll indulge you none the less.
Can't even hold a grasp onto the argument? Again, a lot of people don't seem to be able to see anything other than black or white when someone throws a criticism at Star Wars. No, Star Wars isn't one of the greatest stories of all time (that's just plain ignorant), in fact both the Indiana Jones trilogy and way out in the lead, LOTR, are better franchises.
Does that make An Empire Strike Back! and A New Hope bad films? No, they're both solid films, plus the original Star Wars is the second most important film in American film history (not the world though). Deal with that. And again, Star Wars is a futuristic Western set amidst a Pulp Mythos.
Strong proof. I was almost overblown with your argument.
You're not very adventurous with film are you? There are plenty of better films out there, kiddo, just take a look. Again, they may be literary greats in their "literature" form, yet you can't extend that title to the films. We call Gone With the Wind a classic movie, because it sets new standards in the industry for a film with a classical hollywood narrative, as well as its production design. In fact, There Will Be Blood, which I saw last night, is far better than any of the SW film, even ESB.
And again, you're off topic. The fact that you keep changing your argument shows you have no real solid base or informed reasoning to fall back on. Why ask me questions about epics when I've just shattered your argument that SW is an epic, even if it contains a couple of the characteristics (which are mainly universal btw)?
To answer your last, poor question, I can think of quite a lot of Historial Epics; Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, Julius Cesar and Spartacus to name a few. But it isn't Classical Epic Poetry because they are different mediums, and no, just because something contains the same name, does not mean it's the same. Again, you're off topic and floundering about. It's embarrasing.
I've not seen a good pwning like what Exanda's doing here in a long time.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Indiana Jones should have died after the Holy Grail. Temple of doom is nothing to write home about... and simply the ammount of feedback that Star wars gets back from us pitiful geeks is enough to prove that it is in fact, way more popular, if not better. do a google search for "star wars fanfilm" and you will get way more results then if you did one for "Indiana Jones Fanfilm". Also, Lord of the Rings is a crappy franchise and an even crappier movie. Ever used your inflated intelect to the point of reading the books? no... i didnt think so.
Hmm. if its a futuristic western, how come I see more spaceships then tauntauns? If star wars was as heavily based on a western as you demand that it was, wed be debating over which tauntaun goes the fastest, and wheather hopalong cassidy would every be able to defeat Darth Roy Rogers.... but, i guess george lucas's word is Cannon, so... lets go crap on our faces over that oversight....
the point is, I never said that star wars couldnt be a western, or that a western couldnt be epic... I mainly said that Star Wars without the Jedi would be way harder to keep in the vast epic scale. I mean, in the old west you could ride for 100 miles and find a guy just as much of a quickshot as good ol John Wayne. or someone could practice and become as good as good ol Wrangler Boba Fett... With the force, potential is picked, and destiny and supernatural is involved. You cant do that with cowboys like you can with supernatural destiny and Magically picked Jedi Knights.
why thank you...
in your pitiful mind, you have failed to realise that your arguements keep changing. is it not you who said: "its a flim, not a piece of prose" yet, you refer to some movies of 2 generations ago as "epics"... I said the greatest story of OUR Generation, and OUR time... Did I say it was the greatest ever? There will be blood is pitiful, I remember not wanting to pay the money to go and see it. to strengthen your arguement, you should have picked a different film, perhaps? and I doubt that "there will be blood will quickly generate 5 sequels all better then the first.
take a look at the pic. its kind of sad, but let the masses speak for themselves. this is undoubtedly the saddest thing ive seen to make me think that the people of the world are stupid, but it also 100% backs me up on my point that star wars is the greatest (and most popular) story of our time...
Feb 18th, 2008 07:51 PM
I can't help but mock you now.
FER TEA!!
Attachment: 
