|
Post by High Sierra Fan on May 3, 2016 22:56:58 GMT -8
Go ahead and say it, you know you want to.
|
|
zeke
Trail Wise!
Peekaboo slot 2023
Posts: 9,881
|
Post by zeke on May 4, 2016 4:41:31 GMT -8
|
|
zeke
Trail Wise!
Peekaboo slot 2023
Posts: 9,881
|
Post by zeke on May 4, 2016 14:15:46 GMT -8
46 years ago, Kent State had a little thing happen on campus. 1970. 7 yrs later, SW came into our lives.
|
|
|
Post by Lamebeaver on May 5, 2016 3:47:56 GMT -8
and may the schwartz be with you as well
|
|
gabby
Trail Wise!
Posts: 4,539
|
Post by gabby on May 5, 2016 5:48:37 GMT -8
Go ahead and say it, you know you want to. :) Okay, I will: The first movie (not the "1st" in the series, but the first one released in 1977) was a pleasant surprise. If you remember back that far, none of the "pre-reviews" gave it much chance of success - I remember that Time magazine (remember Time magazine?) said it would most likely fizzle. "Space operas" were never all that successful. The wife dragged me to the movie - she was a dyed-in-the-wool "space cadet" from the days of "Star Trek", a real "trekkie" who could identify each episode with a mere 30 seconds of exposure, had all the books and "fanzines" and so forth. I appreciated the movie more than I thought I would, and the second one was okay too. After that, I lost interest. I totally expected that the thing would be built into a wobbly franchise with all the toy, clothing and child's room drape "spin-offs" - remember that Lucas originally planned nine movies, but even he lost interest in churning out the dreck after a while. Now it has been sold to Disney, who've predictably increased the hype while lowering the quality still further. I was dragged to the latest incarnation, and I have to say that Disney has definitely continued the slide downward: the production I saw was less "story" and more in thrall to the combo of repeat-the-formula and giant-screen-special-effects-rule-everything claptrap that you saw progressively overtake the other five movies that followed the first. With the introduction of the "cartoon character Teddy bears" in the 3rd movie (the 6th movie now, after the 3 "prequels"), anyone should have been able to see where the thing was going. The prequels completed that with the goofy "people" with long ears who were so cutely inept (in a sort of racist way). That sale to Disney should have been predictable, but I have to confess that, even though I have very low regard for the standards of the "Disney empire", I didn't think "Star Wars" met their extremely low bar for "entertainment". Live and learn. So, no, the 4th is kaput. It died with movie #3 (#6 in the series).
|
|
|
Post by Lamebeaver on May 5, 2016 12:30:58 GMT -8
I totally expected that the thing would be built into a wobbly franchise with all the toy, clothing and child's room drape "spin-offs" - remember that Lucas originally planned nine movies, but even he lost interest in churning out the dreck after a while. The first movie lost me when they let a "farm kid" fly one of their fighters without any training. My impression was that the movie was specifically targeted at children and teens. I've now seen several of them and I still don't get the attraction, though I suspect many of the adults who are enamored with it probably viewed it the first time as children.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on May 5, 2016 18:17:27 GMT -8
Though the dialog made it clear "the farm kid" had been flying various craft for most of his life. BTS detail has reported that wasn't shown because Lucas was a budget hardass, believing you squeezed creativity out of people and a project when they didn't have a constantly expanding budget: and so the backstory flight scenes were cut from the plans.
Niche films but not "children's"
But I hear yah. Once those three old women started "stirring" some sort of "magic" in an old stew pot? Totally thrown out of the reality of Macbeth.
|
|
|
Post by Lamebeaver on May 6, 2016 7:00:33 GMT -8
I'd also like to think that by the time a civilization has advanced to the point where space travel is common, they would also have dispensed with princesses.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on May 6, 2016 18:55:44 GMT -8
I'd also like to think that by the time a civilization has advanced to the point where space travel is common, they would also have dispensed with princesses. Or they would have taken heed of the wisdom of Thomas Hobbes that kings are the superior form of sovereign and kings mean princesses... "Hobbes believed that a government headed by a king was the best form that the sovereign could take. Placing all power in the hands of a king would mean more resolute and consistent exercise of political authority, Hobbes argued. Hobbes also maintained that the social contract was an agreement only among the people and not between them and their king. Once the people had given absolute power to the king, they had no right to revolt against him." Hey they still seemed to have priests so why not other archaic institutions? All in all it's a BIG galaxy after all....
|
|
|
Post by Lamebeaver on May 6, 2016 19:20:02 GMT -8
Hobbes also maintained that the social contract was an agreement only among the people and not between them and their king. Once the people had given absolute power to the king, they had no right to revolt against him." Seems to me history has no shortage of revolts. As soon as you're king, someone comes along and thinks they can do a better job...
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on May 6, 2016 19:24:47 GMT -8
Hobbes also maintained that the social contract was an agreement only among the people and not between them and their king. Once the people had given absolute power to the king, they had no right to revolt against him." Seems to me history has no shortage of revolts. As soon as you're king, someone comes along and thinks they can do a better job... Well sure, just because some political philosopher argues you shouldn't does't mean anyone is going to pay attention. The one I liked better but I can't recall who it was who suggested it was that a king (or dictator) was best because that way the people only had to indulge the corruption of a single individual rather than an entire legislative body with all their innumerable pockets to fill....
|
|