Star Wars: Rogue One

[maflynn]

While I can accept what you are saying, I based this question on there being a Rogue Squadron book series.

Yes, but that was in the so called expanded universe which is now named Legends because Disney with force awakens said that the expanded universe is no longer canon. Basically we shouldn't extrapolate certain plots, or story lines from the old expanded universe because Disney is doing its own thing now.

 

[Huntn]

Yes, but that was in the so called expanded universe which is now named Legends because Disney with force awakens said that the expanded universe is no longer canon. Basically we shouldn't extrapolate certain plots, or story lines from the old expanded universe because Disney is doing its own thing now.

How dare they! I'll have to dig up my "all things Star Wars" thread and amend it.

 

[whooleytoo]

From reading this thread, it seems I was one of the few who enjoyed Episode 7, its characters and in-jokes. It was - for me at least - a massive step up from any of the prequels. I do agree it was just too safe though, almost a remake of Episode 4 with some rehashed good/evil father-son conflict thrown in too.

I would like to see them take some risks though. It's all just too safe, samey and predictable now. Rogue One (Episode 3.5? 3.99?) did add the novelty of the 'tragic' ending, though that was essentially flagged in advance.

My pet theory (which is never going to happen, but I can dream...) is Rey turns out to be the villian, and Kylo Ren the saviour. I can picture it now... she completes her jedi training, and at the end of episode VIII she kneels down, head bowed to complete her initiation ceremony.. "Welcome Rey. You have completed your training. Stand and join the... Order of the Sith". She raises her head, eyes glowing red... It would be such an excellent turn-around.

My reasons:
Rey's strength/Kylo's weakness: the good 'guy' is always the underdog, fighting insurmountable odds. Yet in Eps. 7 Rey masters the force in seconds, while easily besting Kylo who is constantly struggling with self-doubt.
Element of surprise: Rey has been set up as good/clean/helpful character who does little wrong. What better shock if she turns out to become something else!
Lack of female villians in the series: The series has no female villians, other than the wimpy Captain Phasma whose only real contribution is to be captured, meekly disable the shields then be chucked in the garbage chute. A strong, female villain would be a great break with tradition.

 

[Huntn]

From reading this thread, it seems I was one of the few who enjoyed Episode 7, its characters and in-jokes. It was - for me at least - a massive step up from any of the prequels. I do agree it was just too safe though, almost a remake of Episode 4 with some rehashed good/evil father-son conflict thrown in too.

I would like to see them take some risks though. It's all just too safe, samey and predictable now. Rogue One (Episode 3.5? 3.99?) did add the novelty of the 'tragic' ending, though that was essentially flagged in advance.

My pet theory (which is never going to happen, but I can dream...) is Rey turns out to be the villian, and Kylo Ren the saviour. I can picture it now... she completes her jedi training, and at the end of episode VIII she kneels down, head bowed to complete her initiation ceremony.. "Welcome Rey. You have completed your training. Stand and join the... Order of the Sith". She raises her head, eyes glowing red... It would be such an excellent turn-around.

My reasons:
Rey's strength/Kylo's weakness: the good 'guy' is always the underdog, fighting insurmountable odds. Yet in Eps. 7 Rey masters the force in seconds, while easily besting Kylo who is constantly struggling with self-doubt.
Element of surprise: Rey has been set up as good/clean/helpful character who does little wrong. What better shock if she turns out to become something else!
Lack of female villians in the series: The series has no female villians, other than the wimpy Captain Phasma whose only real contribution is to be captured, meekly disable the shields then be chucked in the garbage chute. A strong, female villain would be a great break with tradition.

I can't agree or disagree with your premise, but I agree that for this story "safe sucks" and is a failure for creativity. I don't want continued retelling of the same story, I want something NEW in the Star Wars Universe. I'm not interested in this for nostalgic purposes, and if it's just more of the same, the latest new Sith bad guy, countered by the new Jedi Knights, without some originality, then blah. Maybe it's easier for me to imagine and complain about, than actually do.

 

[panzer06]

From reading this thread, it seems I was one of the few who enjoyed Episode 7, its characters and in-jokes. It was - for me at least - a massive step up from any of the prequels. I do agree it was just too safe though, almost a remake of Episode 4 with some rehashed good/evil father-son conflict thrown in too.

I would like to see them take some risks though. It's all just too safe, samey and predictable now. Rogue One (Episode 3.5? 3.99?) did add the novelty of the 'tragic' ending, though that was essentially flagged in advance.

My pet theory (which is never going to happen, but I can dream...) is Rey turns out to be the villian, and Kylo Ren the saviour. I can picture it now... she completes her jedi training, and at the end of episode VIII she kneels down, head bowed to complete her initiation ceremony.. "Welcome Rey. You have completed your training. Stand and join the... Order of the Sith". She raises her head, eyes glowing red... It would be such an excellent turn-around.

My reasons:
Rey's strength/Kylo's weakness: the good 'guy' is always the underdog, fighting insurmountable odds. Yet in Eps. 7 Rey masters the force in seconds, while easily besting Kylo who is constantly struggling with self-doubt.
Element of surprise: Rey has been set up as good/clean/helpful character who does little wrong. What better shock if she turns out to become something else!
Lack of female villians in the series: The series has no female villians, other than the wimpy Captain Phasma whose only real contribution is to be captured, meekly disable the shields then be chucked in the garbage chute. A strong, female villain would be a great break with tradition.

Some good points but 7 was a loss the minute Kylo took off that helmet. IMHO, one of the worst casting decisions for a major film I've seen in a long time. Wrong look, stiff acting and feeble villain cred.

I mean seriously, what sort of Empire is Snoke running here? Did he learn nothing from the destruction of the Death Star? I mean, the local Drug Cartels and Criminal warlords in Afghanistan have better security than the most fearsome weapon in the galaxy.

Other than that it was a few hours of entertainment. Better than Taken 2 & 3.
[doublepost=1483644869][/doublepost]

I can't agree or disagree with your premise, but I agree that for this story "safe sucks" and is a failure for creativity. I don't want continued retelling of the same story, I want something NEW in the Star Wars Universe. I'm not interested in this for nostalgic purposes, and if it's just more of the same, the latest new Sith bad guy, countered by the new Jedi Knights, without some originality, then blah. Maybe it's easier for me to imagine and complain about, than actually do.

I agree. When a vengeful and technologically resurgent Kilrathi attack First Order and Republic planets, killing and eating the inhabitants as they crush their ancient human foes; now that would be something new.

 

[Apple fanboy]

From reading this thread, it seems I was one of the few who enjoyed Episode 7, its characters and in-jokes. It was - for me at least - a massive step up from any of the prequels. I do agree it was just too safe though, almost a remake of Episode 4 with some rehashed good/evil father-son conflict thrown in too.

I would like to see them take some risks though. It's all just too safe, samey and predictable now. Rogue One (Episode 3.5? 3.99?) did add the novelty of the 'tragic' ending, though that was essentially flagged in advance.

My pet theory (which is never going to happen, but I can dream...) is Rey turns out to be the villian, and Kylo Ren the saviour. I can picture it now... she completes her jedi training, and at the end of episode VIII she kneels down, head bowed to complete her initiation ceremony.. "Welcome Rey. You have completed your training. Stand and join the... Order of the Sith". She raises her head, eyes glowing red... It would be such an excellent turn-around.

My reasons:
Rey's strength/Kylo's weakness: the good 'guy' is always the underdog, fighting insurmountable odds. Yet in Eps. 7 Rey masters the force in seconds, while easily besting Kylo who is constantly struggling with self-doubt.
Element of surprise: Rey has been set up as good/clean/helpful character who does little wrong. What better shock if she turns out to become something else!
Lack of female villians in the series: The series has no female villians, other than the wimpy Captain Phasma whose only real contribution is to be captured, meekly disable the shields then be chucked in the garbage chute. A strong, female villain would be a great break with tradition.

Not at all. I enjoyed Ep 7 very much.

I think your plan for episode 8 and 9 are about as likely as Jar Jar banks turning out to be Snoke!

 

[rhett7660]

From reading this thread, it seems I was one of the few who enjoyed Episode 7, its characters and in-jokes. It was - for me at least - a massive step up from any of the prequels. I do agree it was just too safe though, almost a remake of Episode 4 with some rehashed good/evil father-son conflict thrown in too.

I would like to see them take some risks though. It's all just too safe, samey and predictable now. Rogue One (Episode 3.5? 3.99?) did add the novelty of the 'tragic' ending, though that was essentially flagged in advance.

My pet theory (which is never going to happen, but I can dream...) is Rey turns out to be the villian, and Kylo Ren the saviour. I can picture it now... she completes her jedi training, and at the end of episode VIII she kneels down, head bowed to complete her initiation ceremony.. "Welcome Rey. You have completed your training. Stand and join the... Order of the Sith". She raises her head, eyes glowing red... It would be such an excellent turn-around.

My reasons:
Rey's strength/Kylo's weakness: the good 'guy' is always the underdog, fighting insurmountable odds. Yet in Eps. 7 Rey masters the force in seconds, while easily besting Kylo who is constantly struggling with self-doubt.
Element of surprise: Rey has been set up as good/clean/helpful character who does little wrong. What better shock if she turns out to become something else!
Lack of female villians in the series: The series has no female villians, other than the wimpy Captain Phasma whose only real contribution is to be captured, meekly disable the shields then be chucked in the garbage chute. A strong, female villain would be a great break with tradition.

Not at all, I thoroughly enjoyed SWE7. I liked Rogue One better though. To me this felt like a war movie that takes place in the SW universe.

Don't get me wrong, SWE7, brought back all of my old favorites which I loved. The story was good, not great, but good and watchable. Unlike Episodes 1-3 which I have seen only the once and really have no desire to see again. Episode 7 and Rogue have already been seen on multiple occasions.

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

I also enjoyed Ep VII. It captured the excitement and magic of the Star Wars universe brilliantly, and I do rate it above the prequels (but not Rogue One). My only criticism of it is that too much of the plot was taken from Ep IV. What helps Rogue One stand head and shoulders above it, in my opinion, is that it was an original story. Sure we could guess the ending (but in most movies the good guys win anyway).

As for the prequels. My kids prefer them, and so I've seen them an awful lot more in the last few years than I have the original trilogy. Each has significant flaws in castings and significant problems with plot and continuity with the original trilogy. BUT, each has elements that really do add constructively and significantly to the Star Wars Universe. For example:
- Darth Maul was a great villain - killed off far too soon.
- All the scenes / elements with great actors (McGregor, Neeson, McDiarmid, etc) were very good.
- Lucas said he wanted to show the Jedi at the 'height of their powers' - he gave us a great idea of what that was.
- We learned more of 'the Force'

There are some very strong elements, and scenes along the way.

Hayden Christenson was completely miscast, and I don't think any elements of the love story between Anakin and Padme Amidala work.

 

[Roller]

I also enjoyed Ep VII. It captured the excitement and magic of the Star Wars universe brilliantly, and I do rate it above the prequels (but not Rogue One). My only criticism of it is that too much of the plot was taken from Ep IV. What helps Rogue One stand head and shoulders above it, in my opinion, is that it was an original story. Sure we could guess the ending (but in most movies the good guys win anyway).

As for the prequels. My kids prefer them, and so I've seen them an awful lot more in the last few years than I have the original trilogy. Each has significant flaws in castings and significant problems with plot and continuity with the original trilogy. BUT, each has elements that really do add constructively and significantly to the Star Wars Universe. For example:
- Darth Maul was a great villain - killed off far too soon.
- All the scenes / elements with great actors (McGregor, Neeson, McDiarmid, etc) were very good.
- Lucas said he wanted to show the Jedi at the 'height of their powers' - he gave us a great idea of what that was.
- We learned more of 'the Force'

There are some very strong elements, and scenes along the way.

Hayden Christenson was completely miscast, and I don't think any elements of the love story between Anakin and Padme Amidala work.

I agree with all your points about TFA and Rogue One, as well as the prequels. I often gauge my like for a movie by how likely I am to watch for at least a little while if I come across it while channel surfing. I would do that every time with episodes IV-VI, but probably not with any of the prequels. (I do the same with Animal House and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, but those are in a different universe.)

 

[rhett7660]

I also enjoyed Ep VII. It captured the excitement and magic of the Star Wars universe brilliantly, and I do rate it above the prequels (but not Rogue One). My only criticism of it is that too much of the plot was taken from Ep IV. What helps Rogue One stand head and shoulders above it, in my opinion, is that it was an original story. Sure we could guess the ending (but in most movies the good guys win anyway).

As for the prequels. My kids prefer them, and so I've seen them an awful lot more in the last few years than I have the original trilogy. Each has significant flaws in castings and significant problems with plot and continuity with the original trilogy. BUT, each has elements that really do add constructively and significantly to the Star Wars Universe. For example:
- Darth Maul was a great villain - killed off far too soon.
- All the scenes / elements with great actors (McGregor, Neeson, McDiarmid, etc) were very good.
- Lucas said he wanted to show the Jedi at the 'height of their powers' - he gave us a great idea of what that was.
- We learned more of 'the Force'

There are some very strong elements, and scenes along the way.

Hayden Christenson was completely miscast, and I don't think any elements of the love story between Anakin and Padme Amidala work.

I completely agree with Hayden's character. I didn't believe him for one second, nor did I believe the love story he had with Padme. Not once. I didn't like his acting, I didn't like his dialogue (not totally his fault), but I didn't like his character at all, or I should say, I didn't like they way he played this character.

However, he did have a few spots that were shiny, when he finally does turn, there were some gems in there, but over all the character did absolutely nothing for me.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I don't think there will be another. While this movie was great, it was intended to be a single stand alone movie in the Star Wars universe. Given the ending, there's really no room for another.

Even though there was a Rogue One series of books, I tend to agree with you that there won't be another Rogue One movie.

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

I completely agree with Hayden's character. I didn't believe him for one second, nor did I believe the love story he had with Padme. Not once. I didn't like his acting, I didn't like his dialogue (not totally his fault), but I didn't like his character at all, or I should say, I didn't like they way he played this character.

However, he did have a few spots that were shiny, when he finally does turn, there were some gems in there, but over all the character did absolutely nothing for me.

Hayden Christensen gets a very hard time for his portrayal of Anakin, as did the boy who played him in Ep I.

I think both actors were simply miscast and that the part was badly written for them. In Ep I the boy was too wholesome. When Yoda says he sense's fear in him it's incongruous with all that we know of him. He was a pod-racer in races where no human had ever finished, and competitors died every race. It didn't work. The boy was great at the wholesome elements of the character, but where was his fearful side?

I also think the role of Anakin in Eps II and III was an incredibly hard one.

According to Michael Kaminsky's "Secret History of Star Wars", when the prequels were cast they were not about Anakin's journey to become Darth Vader. They were a discrete trilogy dealing with earlier events. Obi-Wan Kenobi was supposed to be the central character. The scripts when shooting began were quite different to the movies we have now.

When Ep II had finished shooting, the story (focused around Obi-Wan) didn't work very well. The Padme - Anakin romance was a better way to drive the plot, so it was edited to make that one of the main plot devices, and Obi-Wan Kenobi's character was reduced in significance and screen time (you may have noticed that Ewan McGregor still got top-billing though).

Ep II's new focus then helped determine Ep III.

I've recommended Kaminsky's book here before. It is well worth a read. Those of us who grew up with the Original Trilogy will recall TV specials and interviews George Lucas gave in the 80s, and he said very different things over the years. Kaminsky seems to have had access to transcripts of these interviews, and earlier versions of scripts for the first 6 movies. I think it's quite authoritative.

[doublepost=1483720682][/doublepost]

Even though there was a Rogue One series of books, I tend to agree with you that there won't be another Rogue One movie.

@ufcgrad93

There are two new books. Catalyst and Rogue One. They do relate to the movie. Catalyst tells the lead up to the movie, and Rogue One is, of course, the novel of the movie.

Are you thinking of the Rogue Squadron books by Michael Stackpole and Aaron Allaston? They were about Wedge Antilles and what happened to Rogue Squadron after Return of the Jedi.

See
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_Legends_books

 

[Huntn]

I completely agree with Hayden's character. I didn't believe him for one second, nor did I believe the love story he had with Padme. Not once. I didn't like his acting, I didn't like his dialogue (not totally his fault), but I didn't like his character at all, or I should say, I didn't like they way he played this character.

However, he did have a few spots that were shiny, when he finally does turn, there were some gems in there, but over all the character did absolutely nothing for me.

Hayden Christensen gets a very hard time for his portrayal of Anakin, as did the boy who played him in Ep I.

I think both actors were simply miscast and that the part was badly written for them. In Ep I the boy was too wholesome. When Yoda says he sense's fear in him it's incongruous with all that we know of him. He was a pod-racer in races where no human had ever finished, and competitors died every race. It didn't work. The boy was great at the wholesome elements of the character, but where was his fearful side?

I also think the role of Anakin in Eps II and III was an incredibly hard one.

According to Michael Kaminsky's "Secret History of Star Wars", when the prequels were cast they were not about Anakin's journey to become Darth Vader. They were a discrete trilogy dealing with earlier events. Obi-Wan Kenobi was supposed to be the central character. The scripts when shooting began were quite different to the movies we have now.

When Ep II had finished shooting, the story (focused around Obi-Wan) didn't work very well. The Padme - Anakin romance was a better way to drive the plot, so it was edited to make that one of the main plot devices, and Obi-Wan Kenobi's character was reduced in significance and screen time (you may have noticed that Ewan McGregor still got top-billing though).

Ep II's new focus then helped determine Ep III.

I've recommended Kaminsky's book here before. It is well worth a read. Those of us who grew up with the Original Trilogy will recall TV specials and interviews George Lucas gave in the 80s, and he said very different things over the years. Kaminsky seems to have had access to transcripts of these interviews, and earlier versions of scripts for the first 6 movies. I think it's quite authoritative.

[doublepost=1483720682][/doublepost]

@ufcgrad93

There are two new books. Catalyst and Rogue One. They do relate to the movie. Catalyst tells the lead up to the movie, and Rogue One is, of course, the novel of the movie.

Are you thinking of the Rogue Squadron books by Michael Stackpole and Aaron Allaston? They were about Wedge Antilles and what happened to Rogue Squadron after Return of the Jedi.

See
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_Legends_books

Re: Episode 3- It may be the way it was written, but it infuriated me how seemingly easy it appeared for him to be duped by the Emperor. Yes, I know, the dark side made inroads into his psyche and had undue influence over him. I just did not sense that. Especially with murdering little future jedis. They did not pull off the transition IMO from being basically a good person to Vader.

 

[Number-Six]

Hayden Christensen gets a very hard time for his portrayal of Anakin, as did the boy who played him in Ep I.

I think both actors were simply miscast and that the part was badly written for them. In Ep I the boy was too wholesome. When Yoda says he sense's fear in him it's incongruous with all that we know of him. He was a pod-racer in races where no human had ever finished, and competitors died every race. It didn't work. The boy was great at the wholesome elements of the character, but where was his fearful side?

I also think the role of Anakin in Eps II and III was an incredibly hard one.

According to Michael Kaminsky's "Secret History of Star Wars", when the prequels were cast they were not about Anakin's journey to become Darth Vader. They were a discrete trilogy dealing with earlier events. Obi-Wan Kenobi was supposed to be the central character. The scripts when shooting began were quite different to the movies we have now.

When Ep II had finished shooting, the story (focused around Obi-Wan) didn't work very well. The Padme - Anakin romance was a better way to drive the plot, so it was edited to make that one of the main plot devices, and Obi-Wan Kenobi's character was reduced in significance and screen time (you may have noticed that Ewan McGregor still got top-billing though).

Ep II's new focus then helped determine Ep III.

I've recommended Kaminsky's book here before. It is well worth a read. Those of us who grew up with the Original Trilogy will recall TV specials and interviews George Lucas gave in the 80s, and he said very different things over the years. Kaminsky seems to have had access to transcripts of these interviews, and earlier versions of scripts for the first 6 movies. I think it's quite authoritative.

[doublepost=1483720682][/doublepost]

@ufcgrad93

There are two new books. Catalyst and Rogue One. They do relate to the movie. Catalyst tells the lead up to the movie, and Rogue One is, of course, the novel of the movie.

Are you thinking of the Rogue Squadron books by Michael Stackpole and Aaron Allaston? They were about Wedge Antilles and what happened to Rogue Squadron after Return of the Jedi.

See
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_Legends_books

I agree that Hayden Christensen (and Jake Lloyd) were both miscast, but in my opinion part of the blame for the performances should also lay at George Lucas himself: I do not think he is a good director of actors.

In fact, other actors gave terrible performances throughout the prequels, Sam Jackson and Nathalie Portman come to mind. Even in the original trilogy, if you look at it objectively, you can see the huge difference in the actors performances between IV and V - most notably Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher.

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

@Huntn I think you're right about that. The slaughter of the padawans does cement him as dark side once he does it, but the reason for him to agree to do it in the first place always lacked credibility.

I agree that Hayden Christensen (and Jake Lloyd) were both miscast, but in my opinion part of the blame for the performances should also lay at George Lucas himself: I do not think he is a good director of actors.

In fact, other actors gave terrible performances throughout the prequels, Sam Jackson and Nathalie Portman come to mind. Even in the original trilogy, if you look at it objectively, you can see the huge difference in the actors performances between IV and V - most notably Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher.

Thank you for helping me with the name, Jake Lloyd!

I think you're absolutely right about Lucas. He had these brilliant ideas for a wonderful universe, but the directing was best left to others (notably Lawrence Kasdan in Ep V).

 

[Huntn]

I agree that Hayden Christensen (and Jake Lloyd) were both miscast, but in my opinion part of the blame for the performances should also lay at George Lucas himself: I do not think he is a good director of actors.

In fact, other actors gave terrible performances throughout the prequels, Sam Jackson and Nathalie Portman come to mind. Even in the original trilogy, if you look at it objectively, you can see the huge difference in the actors performances between IV and V - most notably Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher.

So do you think Lucas lost his touch, or never had it and it was just some talented actors could carry the story? Not a challenge, just curious. American Graffiti is pretty darn good for Lucas to be a bad director. So I vote, for the former.

 

[ThinkDifferent24]

The beginning was a bit slow, but it picked up in the last hour. That Vader scene was so badass!

 

[Number-Six]

So do you think Lucas lost his touch, or never had it and it was just some talented actors could carry the story? Not a challenge, just curious. American Graffiti is pretty darn good for Lucas to be a bad director. So I vote, for the former.

Good question. I had to go back and look at the list of feature films he directed, it's much shorter than I thought I admit I have not seen American Graffiti but I have seen THX 1138 a long time ago. I have seen none of his short films.

So based on what I have seen, I would say he probably never had it (the talent to direct actors, he certainly has a lot of talents elsewhere).

 

[rhett7660]

Good question. I had to go back and look at the list of feature films he directed, it's much shorter than I thought I admit I have not seen American Graffiti but I have seen THX 1138 a long time ago. I have seen none of his short films.

So based on what I have seen, I would say he probably never had it (the talent to direct actors, he certainly has a lot of talents elsewhere).

I think the original Star Wars and American Graffiti are great movies. I like both a lot. I think he had a glimmer of it. I think going back and toying with the films and then the release of films 1-3 and the ewoks, really hurt his credibility.

 

[Huntn]

Good question. I had to go back and look at the list of feature films he directed, it's much shorter than I thought I admit I have not seen American Graffiti but I have seen THX 1138 a long time ago. I have seen none of his short films.

So based on what I have seen, I would say he probably never had it (the talent to direct actors, he certainly has a lot of talents elsewhere).

I think Lucas had a vision and was able to execute it, and later for the prequels, if he did the screenplay or had help, they just did not pull off the fleshing out of the early part of this story and the prequel trilogy made that pretty clear. Some of it was clear, but the critical transition from good to bad guy, that would hold it all together was sub-par.

In the realm of great directors, I'll say if you look at his career, it was not a great one, but he managed two mega hits (a hit and a franchise). Of course, even then if you hold up a standard for actually adding meaningful chapters to the saga, JJ Abrahms imo blew Episode 7, and for nostalgic reasons, a lot of the audience forgave him for that. Breath held for Episode 8.

I think the original Star Wars and American Graffiti are great movies. I like both a lot. I think he had a glimmer of it. I think going back and toying with the films and then the release of films 1-3 and the ewoks, really hurt his credibility.

Agreed except I could accept Ewoks.

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

So do you think Lucas lost his touch, or never had it and it was just some talented actors could carry the story? Not a challenge, just curious. American Graffiti is pretty darn good for Lucas to be a bad director. So I vote, for the former.

Interesting.

Ep IV is heavily based on Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. Lucas changed the setting from Feudal Japan, to space, and the samurai to jedi (neither Vader or Obi-Wan obviously use the Force in Ep IV). As for his direction of that movie, I heard an interesting account on a documentary that I haven't seen repeated elsewhere. The interviewee said that Lucas was still not a big name when he made Ep IV, nor were his contemporaries Scorsese and Coppola. They were all friends / acquaintances trying to get their small / independent movies made despite movie studio restraints (this was the mid-70s). Lucas showed them an early cut of the movie, before the special effects were added, and asked what they thought. As they were friends, and no-one was famous and the film was some way away from completion, they were pretty candid in their criticism (the interviewee described them as 'brutal'). Lucas took a great deal of what they said on board and made a series of significant changes.

The special effects were later added, and the rest is history.

In light of Lucas's efforts on Ep VI and in the prequels, I find this tale very credible. Please note though that this account was not in the Kaminsky book I referred to earlier.

As I recall, Kaminsky points out that the characters interaction is warmer in Ep IV than in VI. He attributes this to Lucas's wife being involved in the script and production process. Legend has it that one of the examples of her influence was Leia kissing Luke for luck before they swung across a chasm in Ep IV. It was a very nice touch.

So to return to your question, I'm afraid I'm not sure he ever had a 'touch' as a director.

As for American Graffiti, I'm afraid I've only seen it once and it didn't make much of an impression on me, so I can't really comment.

I will say this though, some films become great by accident. Casablanca is the classic example. The script was unfinished when they started, with significant re-writes daily. They shot several endings, and no-one really knew what was going on. Nevertheless it is cinema gold, and sets a standard few films have matched since.

 

[Number-Six]

Interesting.

Ep IV is heavily based on Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. Lucas changed the setting from Feudal Japan, to space, and the samurai to jedi (neither Vader or Obi-Wan obviously use the Force in Ep IV). As for his direction of that movie, I heard an interesting account on a documentary that I haven't seen repeated elsewhere. The interviewee said that Lucas was still not a big name when he made Ep IV, nor were his contemporaries Scorsese and Coppola. They were all friends / acquaintances trying to get their small / independent movies made despite movie studio restraints (this was the mid-70s). Lucas showed them an early cut of the movie, before the special effects were added, and asked what they thought. As they were friends, and no-one was famous and the film was some way away from completion, they were pretty candid in their criticism (the interviewee described them as 'brutal'). Lucas took a great deal of what they said on board and made a series of significant changes.

The special effects were later added, and the rest is history.

In light of Lucas's efforts on Ep VI and in the prequels, I find this tale very credible. Please note though that this account was not in the Kaminsky book I referred to earlier.

As I recall, Kaminsky points out that the characters interaction is warmer in Ep IV than in VI. He attributes this to Lucas's wife being involved in the script and production process. Legend has it that one of the examples of her influence was Leia kissing Luke for luck before they swung across a chasm in Ep IV. It was a very nice touch.

So to return to your question, I'm afraid I'm not sure he ever had a 'touch' as a director.

As for American Graffiti, I'm afraid I've only seen it once and it didn't make much of an impression on me, so I can't really comment.

I will say this though, some films become great by accident. Casablanca is the classic example. The script was unfinished when they started, with significant re-writes daily. They shot several endings, and no-one really knew what was going on. Nevertheless it is cinema gold, and sets a standard few films have matched since.

About the bolded part, I have either seen that documentary or read this somewhere else, in any case there was also a part about Spielberg being pretty much the only person to have positive things to say about the still unfinished film and to keep going

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

About the bolded part, I have either seen that documentary or read this somewhere else, in any case there was also a part about Spielberg being pretty much the only person to have positive things to say about the still unfinished film and to keep going

Now that you mention it, I recall something about Spielberg being positive too!
[doublepost=1483738932][/doublepost]

JJ Abrahms imo blew Episode 7, and for nostalgic reasons, a lot of the audience forgave him for that. Breath held for Episode 8.

Just watched the YouTube video linked in your signature (setting out the failings of Ep VII). Makes a lot of v strong points.

 

[rhett7660]

Agreed accept I could accept Ewoks.

Ha, I would have liked to have seen the land of Chewy's!!! Which is what we ended up with in one of the battle scenes in episode 2 or 3. LOL.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Ha, I would have liked to have seen the land of Chewy's!!! Which is what we ended up with in one of the battle scenes in episode 2 or 3. LOL.

It's called Kashyyyk!

I'll take ewoks over Ja Ja Binks any day!