I was just listening to some guys at work talking about movies and, as is often the case, they got around to comparing classic movies of their youth to recent ones and invariably Star Wars came up. To be precise the latest ones which everyone in the group agreed were so disappointing to them. I was okay until they said how they'd failed to live up to the original trilogy. I had to step in at that point and try and bring the conversation back down to earth. These guys, and everyone else who says the same thing, seem to forget that the original films were no cinematic masterpieces either. Acting? Hokey (just like now). Sword/light sabre play? I've seen better in the old swashbucklers Errol Flynn used to be in. As for the plots? Come on man, Lucas borrowed from better westerns and Akira Kurosawa's the Hidden Fortress all of which, story wise and thematically are far superior to Star Wars. And to be clear, I saw them when they first came out and thought this. The only saving grace was the special effects which were ground breaking. But, as far as them letting down the standard set forth by Episodes 4,5,6 (I laugh everytime I hear that)? C'mon!
man... a lot to digest in there haha. Im gonna come right out and say i disagree with you, but i dont mean this in a prick sort of way. I can understand where you are coming from and yes i think that to a great extent, even in my own mind, Star Wars resides within this impenitrable smokescreen of nostalgia. That being said however, I am of the opinion that good scifi comes from believable or archatypical stories that people everywhere can connect with, which of course makes complet originality to a certain extant, hard to come by. All one has to do is read Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces, and you might be surprized find that most of our literature/art/mythology is linked and reprised folkloricly. I know that sounds fopish and long winded, but take avatar for instance- definatly a super played out Pochahantus fern gully typ plot, but because those elements made the plot that much more believable, it made for good scifi and resonated with people. I think the same goes in large part for the original star wars films. u got a classic hero legend straight out of Campbell that can resonate with who we are or want to be as people. Furthermore, i got to say that i think the characters, especially han i guess, were way original; its hard for me to think of another hero who would just kind of "cowardly" blast a baddie under a table... except for Indiana Jones who must have had the same writers or somethin haha. Or when face in the face of execution, and having the woman of his dreams declare her love for him, can just answer with, "i know" stone cold baby, fricking awsome. Idk i hope im not coming of as too much of a star wars true believer, but i definately think that the original series deserves mor credit than u give it. But like i said i respect ur opinion man.
I hear what you're saying and agree however Han's character is in no way original (not that it's a bad thing). But the one thing Lucas has always been weak on is story telling. He's a great concept guy but his story lines are never that deep. That's probably because of his general disdain for actors (his words not mine). Once again, my only issue is people who sing the praises of any Star Wars films as if they're anything more than great popcorn fare are definitely seeing things I'm unable to. But, I must admit, they all have scenes or segments I like. First movie - first light sabre scene and Deathstar being destroyed; Empire - the Vader/Luke fight; Jedi - the forest chase scene and once again Luke/Vader fight.
No, its just few movies like star wars, pulp fiction and hangover. Star wars is more for older generation then todays generation, i my self prefer lord of the rings but if 20 or so years it will be like star wars is today.
Empire Strikes Back is in my opinion the best of the three, It is a great movie and there's a reason why many rate it to be one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever made. ( Though my personal favorite is Terminator 2, Empire is a close second. )
Also the original trilogy is far superior to the prequels, which were all just a mess.
Just ten reasons off the top of my head how wrong you are about the "the standard set forth by Episodes 4,5,6".
Star Wars (original trilogy) did borrow from other genres, no one can deny that. I'll even go so far as to agree that not every actor in the movie is "Oscar-Worthy".
But when it comes to the Prequels, they completely failed to live up not only to the anticipation of the Star Wars fans, but they also failed to live up to the whole "universe" that Star Wars was set in. In fact, there are aspects of the Prequels that actually not only counters the Original trilogy, but also completely ruins it. (Blood test for Jedi-Powers -- so why not test at birth since we can do the tests today for something like Down Syndrome, Stormtroopers are clones even though we've had example after example of Officers being non-clones, 10yr old "slave-boy" from backwater planet being on what is known as the "Capital planet" being judged by strangers for something that is going to effect the rest of his life being denied because he has "Fear" and "Anger" -- can you name a kid who wouldn't be afraid being in the "Big-city" on his own for the first time at the age of 10 and being judged by complete strangers for his potential in 20-30 years down the road, or "NOT ANGRY" because his mother is still a slave AND stuck in a place where people are pissed off at HIM because he showed them up, not to mention LOOSING MONEY just a few minutes earlier in the movie?... etc,etc).
The Prequel Trilogy failed to live up to the standards of the Original Trilogy in exactly the same way that Godfather 3 failed to live up to the standards of Godfather Part 1 and Part 2... It's "Potential to be good and enjoyable" never really came around and in hindsight should not have been made at all.