The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Would you rewrite 'Star Wars: Episode 1'?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old 03-07-2012, 11:03 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

So much about me putting words into your mouth:

"not the elite" - wrong
"everything appreciate in value" - You equated Shakespeare with "everything" so make up your mind. Were his plays just ordinary, mediocre stuff that got elevated by chance and by time or is there something inherently great about (some of) his plays?

No idea why you think I think I am superior to anybody. I am a nutty left who would like to live in a more egalitarian society and last time I checked all of us here are sci-fi fans. I have little classical literature or classical music on my shelves and plenty of mediocre sci-fi stuff. So perhaps it is my argument taht average and trashy art (of which at least I consume large amounts relative to the good stuff) should be called average and trashy art that annoys you?

Last edited by horatio : 03-07-2012 at 11:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-07-2012, 11:06 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Beggars, the unwashed masses are not the elite alone. Which you concurred with.

'Everything' - it was an attempt at humour that as usual flies about a hundred miles overhead as part of my response to Tom. The part of the conversation where he observed (and you again concurred) that it was not until several hundred years AFTER his death his work was elevated to the particular status it has enjoyed since.

The last part - I'd suggest asking a Shakespeare scholar.

I don't care what you find trashy or not. Entirely your business. But whether or not Star Wars 'is' such a thing is irrelevant (and ironically since I'm not even a hardcore fanboy for it) and still doesn't affect the overall position it has in terms of cinema. Which is what seems to annoy you whereas I merely accept it as being the case. Otherwise you wouldn't be at pains to try and paint it as trash as if saying so makes any difference to it.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 03-07-2012 at 11:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-07-2012, 11:14 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

You claimed that Star Wars belongs to the good stuff whereas I claimed that it belongs to the large amount of mediocre stuff that will not be watched in a hundred years anymore. Seemed to me to be a discussion about which movies will or should stand the test to time. I simply don't see Star Wars alongside Hitchcock, Chaplin or Bergman.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-07-2012, 11:39 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

I said that it was 'in the execution as well as the content' (you can find it here as a matter of fact)

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/...=11563&page=10

And in the case of Star Wars that's exactly what it is. And despite it's faults it is also a good film. The reception to it (sure, some of it at the time was negative I believe) and the phenomenon it became in 1977 speaks to the rest of it's impact in cinema from that point on.

I simply can't do anything if that's not to your liking.

In that sense, within the film preservation argument I have no problem suggesting it's preservation (and also that of Empire) alongside works by ALL the other director's you listed and a great many more.

Of course, in a hundred years I'll be dead (unless medical tech really advances) and so we will likely never know the answer to what will and will not stand that sort of test of time.

But I reckon that in a hundred years people will probably still want to watch something that purely and simply entertains them and entertains them well. As much as they will also want something that stimulates them in other ways. Which is why examples of BOTH must be preserved for a full as possible a selection of cinema history.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 03-07-2012, 11:52 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

OK, so we are back in the preservation discussion. As I said, despite the quality issues Samwise mentioned the only option I see for you guys is to make due with existing copies of the first version.
The other options are to wait for a re-release of the originals and lobby for it such that Lucas who seems to own them realizes that there is sufficient demand to make money or to tremendously change copyright law which I would consider, despite being for less rigid copyright laws, very wrong.

I personally don't care about it as I have always been more of a forest than the trees type (not caring about details is not an asset, it is just the way I am).
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 03-07-2012, 11:56 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Your unlikely to change copyright law so what's left is preservation of the actual film itself and not marginal VHS copies floating about the ether. We're talking about larger scale and more careful film preservation than effectively bootlegs where it can be done.

However, Sam elaborated on that much more effectively a few pages back.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 03-07-2012, 12:31 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
But I reckon that in a hundred years people will probably still want to watch something that purely and simply entertains them and entertains them well. As much as they will also want something that stimulates them in other ways.
I don't think that there is a conflict between what you call depth and entertainment. Shakespeare is the best example. Sure, there are great movies which are not really entertaining like 2001 which is more meditating, like you could walk out for five minutes and not miss a thing, but I'd say most great movies are very entertaining. I mean, gee, I never made it through a Truffaut movie so I am not arguing from some "only artsy-fartsy movies kick a*s" point of view and more from a Hollywood needs more Dark Knights aka "if you make a blockbuster let's also ensure that the script and the actors are great".
Or to quote the great Japanese moviemaker: A truly good movie is really enjoyable, too. There's nothing complicated about it. A truly good movie is interesting and easy to understand.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.