Star Wars Discussion Thread v. Rise of Skywalker / Mandalorian (merged)

[gmillerdrake]

As I've been finishing up the original trilogy after watching the prequel trilogy two things really stood out to me:

1) I know the original movies have been cleaned up a little bit over the years, but the special effects using physical models have stood up way better over time than the CGI in the prequels.

Oh yeah. The CGI in the prequels has not aged well at all. Case and point is my kids when they first saw the prequels (they were at the time (7,10,11) literally laughed out loud at the CGI in AOTC.

It's as if Lucas forgot just how authentic the OT felt with those practical models/effects.....and just could not help himself when the technology was there to enhance the prequels. Had he chose to use it sparingly in order to compliment.....much like Abrams did in TFA.....it'd have been much more successful. But the fact that the prequels were 90% in front of a green screen really detract from anything 'good' IMO

[lordxizor]

As I've been finishing up the original trilogy after watching the prequel trilogy two things really stood out to me:

1) I know the original movies have been cleaned up a little bit over the years, but the special effects using physical models have stood up way better over time than the CGI in the prequels.

Oh yeah. The CGI in the prequels has not aged well at all. Case and point is my kids when they first saw the prequels (they were at the time (7,10,11) literally laughed out loud at the CGI in AOTC.

It's as if Lucas forgot just how authentic the OT felt with those practical models/effects.....and just could not help himself when the technology was there to enhance the prequels. Had he chose to use it sparingly in order to compliment.....much like Abrams did in TFA.....it'd have been much more successful. But the fact that the prequels were 90% in front of a green screen really detract from anything 'good' IMO

It's almost like people get intoxicated by the possibilities of CGI and are blinded to it's negatives. It happened in The Hobbit movies versus the Lord of the Rings movies as well. LOTR are awesome and were considered instant classics. There was plenty of CGI, but a lot of practical effects, and men in suits for the orcs for instance. The Hobbits switched to more digital effects and CGI orcs. It's like filmmakers feel constrained by the real physics of using physical effects, props, etc. But in reality it's those practical effects that make a movie feel more real, natural, and relatable to the audience, even when the subject of the movie is completely unrealistic. Compare RDJ in the physical Ironman suit in the first Iron Man movie, versus RDJ in a CGI suit later. I feel like the CGI suit was a huge step down.

[pg1067]

A New Hope: I love this movie. Probably my favorite of all time. It never gets old. I haven't ever watched the Bluray version, which I'm assuming is what's on Disney+ and it looks great!

Some dumb observations that I haven't thought about much before:
Why didn't they stop and change ships when they knew the Empire was tracking the Falcon?
Why is Luke, a kid who just showed up, leading one of the torpedo runs down the trench?
Why did they all fly around shooting at stuff in the Death Star battle? Just go straight to the exhaust port and everyone launch torpedoes at it until one goes in. Fly straight down from above toward it!
Greedo shooting first is "macklunky" - That's going to be my new stand-in phrase for bullshit

1. I assume the answer is because they were out in the middle of nowhere and had no real ability to obtain another ship.  Also, Han was cocky.
2. He was pretty much the only one left.  Recall that he was a wingman for Red Leader, who got shot.  Biggs's ship was injured, so he took off, and that left just Luke (at least I think that's all right).
3. I think the real answer is narrative drama.  Maybe there's some other post hoc rationalization for it, but I think it's just drama.

I've gotten a few SW Christmas Special videos pop up in my YT feed recently. Which got me thinking.... has anyone here actually seen that all the way through? I haven't. I was born in 76, so have the vaguest of memories of TESB being released, and of course by the time of RotJ I was fully immersed on the SW universe. I had the toys, VHS tapes, Halloween costumes... I don't think I was even aware of the Holiday Special till many, many years later.

I can't say I have a specific recollection of watching it, but I feel absolutely certain I did when it first aired.  I was born in 1967, so I saw the original at a drive-in theater with my sister and her husband and 8-month old daughter.  I was a few months shy of my 10th birthday.  I think my sister and bro-in-law had already seen it, and I recall my niece crying a lot.

The Holiday Special aired on Friday, November 17, 1978, which was the Friday before Thanksgiving.  I had turned 11 a few weeks earlier and was right in the target age for something like this.  If you were born in 76, I think it would have been virtually impossible for you to have been aware of it, and it's never been rebroadcast and was largely forgotten until the original trilogy started becoming widely available in the early/mid-90s.  One reviewer apparently wrote (long after the fact), "I'm not convinced the special wasn’t ultimately written and directed by a sentient bag of cocaine."  But 11-year old me almost certainly didn't know any better and had no issues with it.

[Cool Chris]

1) I know the original movies have been cleaned up a little bit over the years, but the special effects using physical models have stood up way better over time than the CGI in the prequels.

The model, miniature work, and visual effects ILM did on those movies (and other work around that time like Wrath of Khan) is nothing short of remarkable.

[gmillerdrake]

Just secured (5) tix for opening night for the family. Back row, dead center, Dream loungers.

[Stadler]

A New Hope: I love this movie. Probably my favorite of all time. It never gets old. I haven't ever watched the Bluray version, which I'm assuming is what's on Disney+ and it looks great!

Some dumb observations that I haven't thought about much before:
Why didn't they stop and change ships when they knew the Empire was tracking the Falcon?
Why is Luke, a kid who just showed up, leading one of the torpedo runs down the trench?
Why did they all fly around shooting at stuff in the Death Star battle? Just go straight to the exhaust port and everyone launch torpedoes at it until one goes in. Fly straight down from above toward it!
Greedo shooting first is "macklunky" - That's going to be my new stand-in phrase for bullshit

1. Can't tell you;
2. I think PG1067 answered this right; he was the only one left.
3. I think it was a requirement to get past the surface defenses of the Death Star.  You'll note that early in the attack there were surface cannons firing at the ships.

[The Walrus]

I'm one episode into The Mandalorian and it feels like Jim Henson's Star Wars. Meaning, I don't know if I like this yet, but I'm leaning towards disliking it. Some real Muppet vibes here.

[Zantera]

I'm one episode into The Mandalorian and it feels like Jim Henson's Star Wars. Meaning, I don't know if I like this yet, but I'm leaning towards disliking it. Some real Muppet vibes here.

Maybe it's my lowered expectations after how meh the last 3 movies have been but I'm really digging it. Nice with a Star Wars story that's smaller in scope and doesn't have death stars, sith lords, jedi or lightsabers shoved into it.

[Grappler]

I'm one episode into The Mandalorian and it feels like Jim Henson's Star Wars. Meaning, I don't know if I like this yet, but I'm leaning towards disliking it. Some real Muppet vibes here.

What instantly hooked me were the look, sound and feel of the show.  The sound of the landspeeder was exactly the same as Luke's and it just fully brought me back to being a kid in the 1980's with one, single sound.  The binocular images were very similar to the first film.  Small things that just made me feel that this show absolutely belongs to the era of the original trilogy (it is set right after ROTJ).

That's enough for me right there - whatever story they're telling and how it may fit in the current canon is just icing on the top.  I love that the show feels so much like the Star Wars that I grew up with.

[Stadler]

So.... I've watched the trilogies before, several times, and want to do it again before the next film comes out.

What's the preferred order?  I'm thinking of going in the order of release, not chronological.   I've done both, but can't remember which one I liked better.   

[bosk1]

That, and just the overall look and feel.  The environment just feels...right.  And the use of CGI is fantastic.  I mean, other than the 2-legged riding lizards (I forget what they are called), there is nothing that jumps out and LOOKS totally CGI. 

I'm one episode into The Mandalorian and it feels like Jim Henson's Star Wars. Meaning, I don't know if I like this yet, but I'm leaning towards disliking it. Some real Muppet vibes here.

What instantly hooked me were the look, sound and feel of the show.  The sound of the landspeeder was exactly the same as Luke's and it just fully brought me back to being a kid in the 1980's with one, single sound.  The binocular images were very similar to the first film.  Small things that just made me feel that this show absolutely belongs to the era of the original trilogy (it is set right after ROTJ).

That's enough for me right there - whatever story they're telling and how it may fit in the current canon is just icing on the top.  I love that the show feels so much like the Star Wars that I grew up with.

That, and just the overall look and feel.  The environment just feels...right.  And the use of CGI is fantastic.  I mean, other than the 2-legged riding lizards (I forget what they are called), there is nothing that jumps out and LOOKS totally CGI. 

So.... I've watched the trilogies before, several times, and want to do it again before the next film comes out.

What's the preferred order?  I'm thinking of going in the order of release, not chronological.   I've done both, but can't remember which one I liked better.   

Have you tried Machete Order?  I have always wanted to try that out, but haven't gotten around to it.  But it seems like a compelling way to tell the story.  I remember being skeptical the first time I started reading that blog article.  But as I read through it, he overcame my skepticism by the end.  And if you want to modify it to include ep. I, just insert that right before ep. II. 

If I had the time, I'd love to do that, and also weave in Rogue One and Solo.  But weaving in the two stand-alones removes the drama that is the point of that viewing order, so I guess I would leave them out.  So the Skywalker saga order would go:  IV, V, I, II, III, VI, VII, VIII.

[lordxizor]

Why is Luke, a kid who just showed up, leading one of the torpedo runs down the trench?

2. I think PG1067 answered this right; he was the only one left.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but it always seemed to me that each group of three fighters went into the trench with the leader, who's job it was to launch the torpedo into the vent, and two guys trailing behind to hold off the fighters. Luke was clearly the leader of his trio because he had his targeting computer on while Biggs and the other guy were there to hold off the fighters. Why wouldn't Biggs or the other guy, who had presumably been with the Rebellion for longer, been the torpedo guy with Luke trailing and holding off the fighters? Luke had done nothing to prove his piloting skills prior to this point.

[Adami]

I'll also do a rewatch, but I'm going to have to blow off Solo. Just don't think it adds anything helpful, necessary, or entertaining.

I feel like I'll just do I, II, III, Rogue One, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII.

The other one, I think would be interesting, but maybe just a bit too jarring for me.

[Stadler]

I'm absolutely doing this.  Might even start tonight.   

I'm going to do the Machete Order:  IV, V, II, III, VI, then I'm going to do Rogue One (which I've seen), then Solo (which I have not seen) then The Force Awakens (which I've seen) and The Last Jedi (which I have not seen).   That puts me fresh into the new film.   I will likely start with the Mandalorians after that.   

[bosk1]

I don't mean to go all "prequel-hate," but if I had time to do even a partial major re-watch, I would probably do:  Rogue One, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and leave out the PT.  Not that it's bad.  But I doubt there will be anything there that is necessary to provide context of IX, and I think it sets up the trilogy nicely in terms of Vader's story. 

[Adami]

I don't mean to go all "prequel-hate," but if I had time to do even a partial major re-watch, I would probably do:  Rogue One, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and leave out the PT.  Not that it's bad.  But I doubt there will be anything there that is necessary to provide context of IX, and I think it sets up the trilogy nicely in terms of Vader's story.

There have been some rumors (that oh dear god I hope are false) for IX that might deal with prequel stuff.



Such as possible Hayden Christensen. Who knows?

Rogue one definitely tried to pay off some of the better prequel aspects, such as Bail Organa. And The Mandalorian is throwing a considerable amount of Holiday Special references at us. And given JJ's hard on for references, I wouldn't be too shocked to see prequel stuff referenced.

Is it necessary though? Probably not.

[Phoenix87x]

Just from the mere fact that Palpatine is again the central antagonist has made me lose some interest. Sure, i love the character, but we’ve been down this road already. But i am remaining optimistic.

[lordxizor]

Just from the mere fact that Palpatine is again the central antagonist has made me lose some interest. Sure, i love the character, but we’ve been down this road already. But i am remaining optimistic.

I don't have a problem with Palpatine if done well. It's better to drag him out than to introduce a new villian at this stage of the game.

[Stadler]

I don't mean to go all "prequel-hate," but if I had time to do even a partial major re-watch, I would probably do:  Rogue One, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and leave out the PT.  Not that it's bad.  But I doubt there will be anything there that is necessary to provide context of IX, and I think it sets up the trilogy nicely in terms of Vader's story.

There have been some rumors (that oh dear god I hope are false) for IX that might deal with prequel stuff.



Such as possible Hayden Christensen. Who knows?

Rogue one definitely tried to pay off some of the better prequel aspects, such as Bail Organa. And The Mandalorian is throwing a considerable amount of Holiday Special references at us. And given JJ's hard on for references, I wouldn't be too shocked to see prequel stuff referenced.

Is it necessary though? Probably not.

I didn't read your small print, but as long as they don't bring back any one-dimensional, wooden, stone-faced actors from the prequels...

[Adami]

Luckily you described every actor from the prequels, possibly excluding Ewan, Jackson, and Ian.

[bosk1]

Actually, I think he epitomized Ewan and Jackson in those films. 

[Adami]

Actually, I think he epitomized Ewan and Jackson in those films. 

Really? While no one was great I thought those two did pretty well.

[gmillerdrake]

Just from the mere fact that Palpatine is again the central antagonist has made me lose some interest. Sure, i love the character, but we’ve been down this road already. But i am remaining optimistic.

I don't have a problem with Palpatine if done well. It's better to drag him out than to introduce a new villian at this stage of the game.

Same. I actually think with how much his character has influenced everything that has happened....it seems only fitting that he'd be brought back into the mix to 'end' this entire saga. I'm of the opinion that the fact it was announced and acknowledged that Palpatine is back is a distraction of sorts to a more 'surprising' reprisal.....and that would be Anakin coming back to put an official 'end' to the Skywalker story. I mean, the title even says 'Rise of Skywalker'

Everyone's postulating this has to do with Rey or Kylo....when it could very well be Anakin returning to destroy the dark side once and for all. And, if done well.....I wouldn't have an issue with that either.

Leave all the 'new' stories/characters etc etc to the future ideas and movies.

[Zook]

Last Star Wars movie I watched in full was Rogue One. I'm holding out hope that one day they'll release the OT without the garbage CGI additions, so I can watch it without cringing, but I remember those movies being fun and had heart. The prequels never seemed fun. I think I saw every one in theaters, and I domt think I ever watched them again outside of clips. Plus all the usual criticisms that I agree with. Bad acting is a major pet peeve. I just can't get past it. The Force Awakens was fun. I wouldn't say R1 was fun, but an entertaining Sci-fi movie nonetheless. Plus that Darth Vader scene was bad ass.

I like The Mandalorian. It has that OT feel. It's fun. I started watching TLJ, but I already didnt like the beginning, and its abundance of negative reviews aren't helping me want to finish it. Is it worth it? I'm not even really that interested in TROS, but curious how it ends.

[Stadler]

I totally agree with Zook on the "fun" part of things. It's almost as if that's a crime these days.  But I can remember sitting in the theater with my dad and brother (it's the first movie and still one of the very few that I've ever seen multiple times in the the theater) and smiling from ear to ear almost the whole time.   I went and saw the re-release back when the prequels were about to come out and it was the same thing, even though by that time I had seen it so many times I could basically recite the dialogue through the film (it felt almost like going to mass that way). 

No disrespect to anyone here, but the acting is FOR ME, an over-blown criticism.  I'm not there to see Hamlet live on stage, any more than I want to hear a 64-bar John and Jordan 32nd note tandem run in the middle of a Cheap Trick song. 

[Adami]

No disrespect to anyone here, but the acting is FOR ME, an over-blown criticism.  I'm not there to see Hamlet live on stage, any more than I want to hear a 64-bar John and Jordan 32nd note tandem run in the middle of a Cheap Trick song.

But that's a false equivalency. Not counting the fact that Shakespeare can also be acted poorly, the idea that if it's not world class master acting (which I assume you were implying) then it's all equal is not true. I don't need the greatest acting from mankind ever, but I want the actors to do the best job they can. I don't want bad acting in any movie, no matter how fun it is. Fun doesn't negate good. You can make the most fun movie in the world, and I STILL want them to do their best. And that applies to everything, writing, directing, FX, etc. When it becomes "who cares? It's fun, just accept crap" then I'm out.

To make a food analogy, I once went to a subway and literally walked out when they were making my sandwich. They were being THAT lazy and uncaring that I walked out, and I've never done that before or since. I don't say "Well, I'm not expecting Wolfgang Puck, so just do whatever and it's all the same" no. I want the best Subway sandwich they can make, I want them to put some effort and care into it because I'm paying for that.

[Zook]

Marvel movies are both fun and have some amazing acting. I don't think I've ever been moved the way those movies do. Star Wars has never done that, even the OT, but I can't remember any bad acting that took me out of the movie. I haven't seen them in many years though.

[Adami]

I'd also like to point out that, of the main actors in the prequels, mainly Hayden, Sam Jackson, Natalie, Ewan, Ian, etc, they are all fantastic actors. The fact that they mostly suck is, I feel, completely George Lucas's fault.

Except the kid who played young Anakin. That kid was just bad.

[The Walrus]

As a noob with the Star Wars lore... I thought Yoda was the last of his kind. What's the deal with this baby in the Mandalorian? I thought it took place after ROTJ? I'm so confused.

[Zook]

I'd also like to point out that, of the main actors in the prequels, mainly Hayden, Sam Jackson, Natalie, Ewan, Ian, etc, they are all fantastic actors. The fact that they mostly suck is, I feel, completely George Lucas's fault.

Except the kid who played young Anakin. That kid was just bad.

I feel sorry for that kid. There have been plenty of bad child actors in movies, but he was hated so bad just because it was Star Wars. It kind of ruined his life.

You think George Lucas and M. Night Shamalamadingdong are friends?

[Adami]

I'd also like to point out that, of the main actors in the prequels, mainly Hayden, Sam Jackson, Natalie, Ewan, Ian, etc, they are all fantastic actors. The fact that they mostly suck is, I feel, completely George Lucas's fault.

Except the kid who played young Anakin. That kid was just bad.

I feel sorry for that kid. There have been plenty of bad child actors in movies, but he was hated so bad just because it was Star Wars. It kind of ruined his life.

You think George Lucas and M. Night Shamalamadingdong are friends?

Well, Haley Joel was a fantastic actor, and still kind of is.

And I do really feel bad for Jake Lloyd, he seems so bitter (and rightfully so) about how his life went after that. That said, he's the one actor (of the main cast) that I don't blame George Lucas for.

[Stadler]

No disrespect to anyone here, but the acting is FOR ME, an over-blown criticism.  I'm not there to see Hamlet live on stage, any more than I want to hear a 64-bar John and Jordan 32nd note tandem run in the middle of a Cheap Trick song.

But that's a false equivalency. Not counting the fact that Shakespeare can also be acted poorly, the idea that if it's not world class master acting (which I assume you were implying)

Just as an aside, what IS it with the Shakespeare hate here?  This is the second time I've used Shakespeare as a euphemism for something respected and admired and had it shit on.    It's undeniable that for years and years, the mark of a good actor was their interpretation of one of the greater of Shakespeare's works, often (for English actors) at the Globe Theater itself.

Of COURSE Shakespeare can be badly acted, and (to the other case) of COURSE not every work by Billy is legendary.  But in the interest of keeping it fun and interesting, there's a spirit to the reference, even if the letter is not perfectly accurate. 

(This is all meant tongue in cheek and for a laugh.)

then it's all equal is not true. I don't need the greatest acting from mankind ever, but I want the actors to do the best job they can. I don't want bad acting in any movie, no matter how fun it is. Fun doesn't negate good. You can make the most fun movie in the world, and I STILL want them to do their best. And that applies to everything, writing, directing, FX, etc. When it becomes "who cares? It's fun, just accept crap" then I'm out.

To make a food analogy, I once went to a subway and literally walked out when they were making my sandwich. They were being THAT lazy and uncaring that I walked out, and I've never done that before or since. I don't say "Well, I'm not expecting Wolfgang Puck, so just do whatever and it's all the same" no. I want the best Subway sandwich they can make, I want them to put some effort and care into it because I'm paying for that.

I agree with you; I do.  I just think there's a middle ground.  For the record, I admire you for the sandwich reaction; I would like to think I would do the same thing under the right circumstances.   But I also don't need the mayo to be home-made, the onions organically grown, the oil EVOO, the vinegar to be cask-aged...   For me, with only a few exceptions the acting hasn't been distractingly bad, and while I'm going to back and rewatch them in anticipation of the next installment I can't say I've disliked any of the movies BECAUSE of the acting.  It's like Robert Ludlum; he's NOT a great writer in the sense of "prose", but before you realize that he's adverbed the paragraph to death, Jason Bourne has shot two people chasing him, jumped out the second story window, and commandeered a vehicle to escape Zurich.   

And for the record, I'm not shitting on anyone who DOES have the opinion that the acting ruined it for them. That's their call to make; I'm only saying that it's not like that for me.

[Stadler]

I'd also like to point out that, of the main actors in the prequels, mainly Hayden, Sam Jackson, Natalie, Ewan, Ian, etc, they are all fantastic actors. The fact that they mostly suck is, I feel, completely George Lucas's fault.

Except the kid who played young Anakin. That kid was just bad.

As cruel as it sounds, I HATE kid actors.   I really do.  I didn't think the kid in Jerry Maguire was cute or charming, I never bought into the Olsen twins phenomenon, hated the "Coreys" both single and together, and I still to this day wonder why every kid on a network TV show under the age of 12 talks like they spoke their first words last Tuesday.  "Mommy, is that man a bad man?  Will he hurt my daddy, mommy?"   GTFO.   I've got four kids in my immediate family and another 10 at least in satellite, plus all their friends, and I don't know one kid that talks that way.

The only one I really like?  Peter Billingsley.  He's got just enough of a hint of a subversive kid-level F-You in his performance (you know what I'm talking about) to make it legendary without being saccharine or fake.   

[Adami]

First of all, your tongue is always welcome to my cheek. Or something.


But I think I was more going against the lowered acceptance level. I saw it a lot with Transformers. "I don't care if it's good, I just want it to be fun." Jesus Herman Christ, why can't it be both? Why are we assuming that fun equals not good? Why are we willing to have it be bad as long as it's fun? I mean, I get that some things are trying to be bad and fun, and that's different. That's the intent.

Lazy is what won't tolerate. Transformers isn't meant to be bad, they just stopped caring and became VERY lazy.

On the prequels, GL became so focused on the visuals that he just became lazy with everything else. If you see behind the scenes or hear interviews with the actors, you'll see what I mean. That is something I don't tolerate. Campy is fine. Bad with intent is fine. Lazy because who cares it'll look pretty? Nope.

[Stadler]

First of all, your tongue is always welcome to my cheek. Or something.


But I think I was more going against the lowered acceptance level. I saw it a lot with Transformers. "I don't care if it's good, I just want it to be fun." Jesus Herman Christ, why can't it be both? Why are we assuming that fun equals not good? Why are we willing to have it be bad as long as it's fun? I mean, I get that some things are trying to be bad and fun, and that's different. That's the intent.

Lazy is what won't tolerate. Transformers isn't meant to be bad, they just stopped caring and became VERY lazy.

On the prequels, GL became so focused on the visuals that he just became lazy with everything else. If you see behind the scenes or hear interviews with the actors, you'll see what I mean. That is something I don't tolerate. Campy is fine. Bad with intent is fine. Lazy because who cares it'll look pretty? Nope.

No, I hear you and I actually agree with you.  We're kind of talking about different things (and that's my bad).