Is the Original Trilogy Overrated?

sorry, but i'm not going to judge Dumb and Dumber on the same criteria as i would The Lighthouse.
nor would i judge Snow White on the same criteria as i would Frozen 2.
The New World is an incredible dramatic examination of identity and longing and the reconciling disparate pieces. it's an absolutely terrible action-adventure.

taking into consideration an intended audience is part of a well-rounded critique.
not because some things like coherence and stakes shouldn't be universal to all storytelling, but because not all storytelling is meant to do the same thing.
things like audience, tone, genre, and yes, time, should all be taken into consideration.

if we were to judge all things by the same criteria, Ray Harryhausen would be kicked to the curb.
not in my world. : o p

 

You don't compare pizza to steak and wine to gatorade.

Some movies are pizza and they're the best pizza they can be and that's all they try to be and there is nothing wrong with that. Dumb and Dumber is some great funny pizza. But it's not a filet mignon.

 

That's not what I was saying. I was referring to all SW movies, not every single movie that is out there, that's just crazy. I'm saying I wish the people were more consistent about analyzing SW movies. If people analyzed the OT like they did with TLJ or even with the PT, they'll see tons of flaws in the OT.

It's like people love Dumb and Dumber but will tear down Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd and Dumber and Dumber To but won't do the same with the original Dumb and Dumber.

 

Delete this thread.

 

Overrated? No.

 

The OT is not overrated. TLJ is over-hated.

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. What are the flaws? Star Wars, the original film, had a major impact on the way films are made and the way they are released. Heck, without it we wouldn't be here right now. And out of the 3 trilogies of SW films I think the OT is way better than the other two.

Having said that, my criticism of Star Wars, and especially the original film (but Star Wars overall) is it is quite derivative of Dune. The Dune books, especially those written by Frank Herbert, are masterpieces of science fiction, and it is obvious George was familiar with them to say the least. I think there are at least 10 instances where he took ideas from Dune, including spice, but also the idea of the Jedi (Bene Gesserit and their "voice" manipulations). But what Lucas did was nonetheless fantastic.

Another flaw in my mind is the fact he really didn't have a sequence of 12 films (at times he said 9, others 12) all planned out. He had one film. He might have had ideas, but there was no "master plan." It worked out quite well in the end, but still that created a problem or two.

Anyway, I'm interested in what you find to be its flaws.

 

I fully recognize The Original Trilogy has over 40 years of nostalgia attached to it for me, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I embrace that nostalgia, but I can still get lost in the magic of the new movies too. One day all of this time will have its own unique nostalgia attached to its as well, just as I still fondly remember waiting in line for The Phantom Menace in 1999.

There's the old saying, "you don't know what you've got till it's gone." I'm determined for that to not happen to me, and to live in the moment, appreciating and savoring everything that is going on, building memories knowing that nothing last forever, so enjoy it while it lasts.

I'm extremely interested in what happens to these new characters. I think each generation will have their own Star Wars to grow up with. I feel very fortunate to be of the generation that was around when it all started. I look forward to seeing what the next Star Wars will be.

 

I hope the last episode brings the fandom back to normal. Films are subjective, I remember when LFL said they loved TLJ and everyone drank the Kool aide. I waited to see the film myself and the rest is history. I really enjoyed TLJ. I hope TROS is not overrated and becomes a great addition to the entire saga.

 

True, but this was a detail that I recently found in ANH that was interesting to me. Tarkin talks about keeping planets in order in the film's fourth draft (shooting script) at two separate parts (from The Internet Movie Script Database (IMSDb)):

(Before Luke's parents are killed).

TARKIN
The Imperial Senate will no longer
be of any concern to us. I've just
received word that the Emperor has
dissolved the council permanently.
The last remnants of the Old Republic
have been swept away.

TAGGE
That's impossible! How will the
Emperor maintain control without the
bureaucracy?

TARKIN
The regional governors now have direct
control over territories. Fear will
keep the local systems in line. Fear
of this battle station.

(Before Alderaan is blown up).

TARKIN
Princess Leia, before your execution
I would like you to be my guest at a
ceremony that will make this battle
station operational. No star system
will dare oppose the Emperor now.

So, without the battle station (the Death Star), there is no fear to keep local systems in line. Yes, there are the regional governors to keep control, but without fear, I would assume that the planets would be able to easily revolt if necessary, especially if they opposed the presumably "new" regional governors. In ESB, it is implied or shown that the star destroyers (formerly known as dreadnaughts in the original/ original lore/merchandise, I believe) were enough to keep most of the planets in line, since none of them were helping the rebellion and that the rebellion was rather small at the beginning of the film.

Aside from Lando's decision (does he count as a regional governor of Bespin???), to oppose the empire, no one is really helping or supplying the rebellion in ESB till ROTJ when Mon Mothma, the Bothans, and Ackbar and his planet help out the rebellion. Actually, if anything the supposed lack of fear makes continuity sense in ROTJ with the increase in rebel supplies/support, but it probably doesn't make much sense in ESB when the rebels could have had 3 solid years of gaining support from local rebellions from certain star systems, didn't gain much in terms of supplies (unless the fur coats and snow hovercrafts count), are hiding on a distant ice planet where probes are needed to find them, and when Lando even feels threatened by Vader's threat of a garrison on Cloud City.

Leia was not Luke's love interest in ESB. Luke was Leia's way to make Han jealous early in ESB. Luke has what 3 scenes with Leia in ESB. When his is recovering, when she gets him from Cloud City and when Lando leaves after Luke gets a new hand.

It's unclear in retrospect what Lucas actually wanted the relationship between Luke and Leia to be (since he had ideas for Luke and Leia to be brother and sister in his first ideas for ANH. In the actual film, Luke has romantic advances towards Leia-he's says that she's beautiful in the hologram, gawks at her before removing her helmet when rescuing her, and defends her, saying he cares when Leia states that Han's quite a mercenary, just wanting to get money out of saving her, and gets jealous and says no when Han suggests him and Leia getting together on the falcon) were planned. But there hints and signs that Luke and Leia had a relationship together in TESB.

In the first draft of TESB by Leigh Brackett, Vader threatens Luke by suggesting that Han will get Leia in his fight with him (I think).

The second draft of TESB shows that the telepathy scene between Luke and Leia wasn't a twin (or family) connection, since Luke was using the force to summon Obi-wan to telepathically contact Leia on the falcon. The second draft was used for shooting scenes there, since Leia's lips actually match dialogue from the second draft (or radio drama at least) when she somehow knows that Luke is there from Obi-wan. The words were dubbed over later in production.

The extended deleted scene when Luke is recovering on Hoth, he expresses concern about her, and they both try to kiss before being interrupted by C-3P0.

Luke was Leia's way to make Han jealous early in ESB.

I'm sorry, but no, I don't think that this is true. Fans usually point Leia's display of making Han jealous as a valid argument to justify Leia's sister-familial connection with Luke in ROTJ. But if you look at the extended deleted scene in TESB, it actually starts out with Luke worrying about Leia and them about sharing a kiss before C-3P0 interrupts. So, the scene's purpose was originally twofold: it provided closure to the interrupted kiss from C-3P0 earlier and it served to show Leia as being (emotionally "cold" and stubborn) and making Han jealous.

Still there are many other real flaws that could be talked about if people really want to dig into the OT and give them The Last Jedi treatment.

I think that you mean the Plinkett treatment. I've seen a few people-One Dodgy Dude, Reviews from the North, and Beard vs. Jedi give their opinion on ROTJ by analyzing it. I'd argue that The Last Jedi treatment for The Last Jedi by fans didn't really look at logic hard enough with the film, like Plinkett would, which is one of the reasons why I still actually like TLJ-some of the logical bits actually hold up under scrutiny; I can't really say the same for some of the prequels, and I grew up with the prequels.

 

I agree, so many reviews have an agenda now. They either get paid a lot to say “this is great! This great!” or some person on a critical power trip decides its fun to “murder to dissect.” (Wordsworth). As you said its subjective and left to each person to decide. I have seen a movie critics lauded and hated it, and I’ve seen a movie critics loathed and loved it. TLJ was for me a suprise, I enjoyed it so much.

 

Such an inflammatory question... To put it diplomatically, I would say it is a product of its time. However, it is worth noting that entries in this series were not universally received at the time with one NYT review of The Empire Strikes back saying

"Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.

Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?"

Lovely.

Complete article: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyt...fer71cee&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=buffer

I suppose the main attraction of the Original Trilogy is arguably not its writing and characterisation but the feeling of nostalgia it generates in the people who grew up with it and those who did not. A reminder of a time where things were less messy, complicated and cynical. A powerful representation of the pugnacious American spirit against the backdrop of the Cold War and its very real existential threat. A source of study for many contemporary philosophers and theologians.

I mean who didn't admire the coolness of Han Solo, the savant like knowledge of C3PO, the naive optimism of Luke Skywalker, the stoicism of Leia and the loyalty of Chewie?

 

If you are insinuating the Rebels have "the pugnacious American spirit" that is definitely NOT Lucas' intention in A New Hope. Much has been written about the Empire being analagous to the United States in Southeast Asia and the Rebels being the Vietnamese.

But I loved your post nonetheless.....

 

Even if the prequel trilogy is my favorite, I find the original saga orginal and fantastic. OT is not overated, considering also its age. Moreover, I loved the remastered version with new scenes and and visual effect. So, OT deserves positive critics, far more than the sequel trilogy.

 

In that vein, the Empire could equally be analogous of any of the major European imperial powers' treatment of indigenous inhabitants of the lands they colonised from East Asia, to Africa and South Amercia or the treatment of Native Americans by descendants of European settlers (Trail of Tears). An analogue of the treatment of the Gauls, the Celts, the Judeans and the Dacians under the Roman Empire. And of course religious and ethnic minorities in Communist China and the USSR (Beria was a busy boy).

A criticism of any form of imperialism and authoritarianism.

When I mentioned "pugnacious American spirit", I meant a perceived set of values commonly associated with American identity: a dogged commitment to the values of democracy and individual liberty. The right of self determination. I did not mean to evoke anything nationalistic in this. Or did I?

 

Not perfect but pretty close in some ways to me personally but I don't hate the prequels or sequels. I just overall enjoy the OT the most

 

No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!

 

From a certain point of view...

A New Hope & Empire are both 10/10, 5 Star, genuinely great movies...but Return of the Jedi is just kinda okay. It definitely benefits from being grouped together with the other two under the "original trilogy" banner.

 

Again, No.