Forbidden Planet, 1956 is pretty good considering it's time period. Amazing use of matte paintings to create the Krell world. Not current CGI level but crushes anything else from that period.
Now back to Star Wars.
How would you change Star Wars?
- Thread starter Frak
- Start date
Forbidden Planet, 1956 is pretty good considering it's time period. Amazing use of matte paintings to create the Krell world. Not current CGI level but crushes anything else from that period.
Now back to Star Wars.
1, 2, 3: have anyone else go back in time and alter about 70% of the dialogue. Clones was pretty awful, and maybe you re-do that as a war epic, a la LOTR:Two Towers. But the other 2 could have been excellent if you take out most of the spoken words and a handful of dumb scenes. These movies convinced me that Lucas was better at painting an epic picture which conveys a theme or emotion, and not so good at filling in the details around it.
Someone should make a sci-fi movie where they send a guy back in time to stop Lucas on the prequels, do better dialogue and eliminate the kiddie crap, and make them as good as Empire. Sort of like 12 Monkeys, change the past to save the future.
Someone should make a sci-fi movie where they send a guy back in time to stop Lucas on the prequels, do better dialogue and eliminate the kiddie crap, and make them as good as Empire. Sort of like 12 Monkeys, change the past to save the future.
A very bloody and graphic execution of Jar Jar.
And like was said before....Boobies.
And like was said before....Boobies.
Forbidden Planet, 1956 is pretty good considering it's time period. Amazing use of matte paintings to create the Krell world. Not current CGI level but crushes anything else from that period.
Now back to Star Wars.
I enjoy it all, Forbidden Planet is in my Laserdisc collection
I just laugh at the idea that other sci fi or fantasy movies from 1977 or before have aged better than Star Wars. 2001 nine years earlier is the one valid argument, Alien 2 years later could be argued...beyond that seems kind of crazy.
For somebody to say that, they probably just think it's neat to bash on Star Wars.
Just some obvious ones:
-No Jar Jar
-Han shoots first
-Vader doesn't scream "Noooo" like a *****
-And in the latest one, Leia not exploding her innards out every orifice and somehow being able magically survive in open space and fly...yeah, could'a done without that.
-No Jar Jar
-Han shoots first
-Vader doesn't scream "Noooo" like a *****
-And in the latest one, Leia not exploding her innards out every orifice and somehow being able magically survive in open space and fly...yeah, could'a done without that.
Have you gone back and rewatched the originals lately? It doesn't keep your attention and it's campy in terms of dialogue. The fact is the genre was underdeveloped which made it groundbreaking. I'd argue that the music is the only thing that remains great by today's standards.
And dont say I'm not a fan. I've read pretty much the entire extended universe pre-disney.
And dont say I'm not a fan. I've read pretty much the entire extended universe pre-disney.
I really think this is the key. I was too old for them when they came out. Saw the first one at age 21, expecting sci-fi, and really thought it was a childish movie. Big on special effects but short on story and weightiness.
Curious if you saw Alien around 23. I think if I were that age and watched Alien in 79 it would have blown my mind (it still did when I saw it as a teenager 15 years after it came out).
I saw Empire in theaters as a very little kid, maybe 4, had already somehow been begging my parents for Star Wars even at that young age.
I enjoy it all, Forbidden Planet is in my Laserdisc collection
I just laugh at the idea that other sci fi or fantasy movies from 1977 or before have aged better than Star Wars. 2001 nine years earlier is the one valid argument, Alien 2 years later could be argued...beyond that seems kind of crazy.
For somebody to say that, they probably just think it's neat to bash on Star Wars.
I think harping on the effects is a bit like harping on old video games because of the graphics. Destiny 2 looks a lot better than, say, Team Fortress 2, the original Halo (even with the graphics update), and even the original DOOM, but the latter three are way more fun to play than 95% of anything new coming out that looks better to a modern eye.
I have never heard a young child complain about the quality of effects in something, though. That seems to be something that comes with teenage cynicism. Young children have very plastic imaginations. I showed my cousin's son Genesis of the Daleks (a Doctor Who serial from 1975) and he loved it. He did not see the cardboard sets and terrible effects.
It comes down to the content of the story, the characters, and the emotion to me, and with those, the Original Trilogy is shockingly modern and not dated at all. The way things are shot and effects are used matters, too. The original Godzilla was obviously a guy in a suit stomping on a paper model of Tokyo, but they work around that by shooting the creature in shadows and from low angles. They frame it in a way that makes you look past their weaknesses. The score to the first two, as well, are still two SW of the greatest in the history of cinema. My wife even commented, watching it with me for the first time, that the score completely sells it.
Somebody brought up Forbidden Planet earlier, and it is the same idea there -- it is imaginative and thematically rich, which means it is still easy to watch even nowadays. The Wrath of Khan has some cheesy effects, but its story and performances get better each and every time that I watch it. I would way rather watch it again compared to any more J.J. Binks crap.
Being "dated" is just not about effects, though. Prevailing styles of cinematography and acting change, too. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is one of my all-time favorites, but that, "Gee whiz, that is a real humdinger!" voice and tone of a lot of Old Hollywood movies is something you just have to look past nowadays. Scenes lasted longer and films themselves were generally shorter. You have to adjust for those contexts when watching them.
That is not even mentioning the Breakfast and Tiffany's and Gone with the Wind types that are, well, #problematic, to say the absolute least.
that's not actually what happens to a body in space though
https://www.cnet.com/news/what-happens-to-the-unprotected-human-body-in-space/
I mean, it was still a bit unrealistic and i wasnt a huge fan of the scene, but is it that over the top for what we know jedi can do? (****, some of the stuff that was in the EU back in the day was way more than this)
The only way you can make Star Wars better is by hiring Mel Brooks as the new director and naming the next one Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.
I'd time travel and ensure that Rian Johnson's mom swallowed him instead of conceiving him. I'd also discourage George Lucas from selling the rights to Disney.
Vader was a calculated, ruthless, intelligent villain, the prequels made him a whiney baby who aside from Dooku and their terrible lightsaber choreography battles, never beat a trained force user 1 on 1 in the prequels. The fact they couldn’t show him at least duel a trained Jedi in the temple, instead we just get a kid murderer.
And the dialogue Christ. There were some great things in the prequels but George hasnt done a good movie in 30 years. He did Red Tails which might be one of the worst movies I ever seen.
I have spoken so much about my dissatisfaction with the new trilogy but did love Rogue 1.
And the dialogue Christ. There were some great things in the prequels but George hasnt done a good movie in 30 years. He did Red Tails which might be one of the worst movies I ever seen.
I have spoken so much about my dissatisfaction with the new trilogy but did love Rogue 1.
Last edited:
VERY curious as to how you would accomplish that. Unless you are really Rian Johnson's dad.
