P A
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,269
*feeds troll*
My choice of avatar aside, I tend to be a deliberate contrarian when it comes to 'objectively' shitty films that people saw when they were kids and then prima facie decide to lionize as 'classics,' especially when the material in question enjoys its dubious status under the auspices of artistic achievement or surpassing technical skill. The sci-fi-fantasy/conceptual source material for Star Wars is hardly original (we're talking decades, here). The acting is mediocre at best, especially from those from whom we would really have expected better, given their star status today. Many of the special effects were embellishments upon or iterations of techniques used long before (2001: A Space Odyssey, anyone?) Lucas's perennially adolescent fanboys grew their first curly hairs. The plot is thin and predictably monomythical in the extreme, which makes for a tedious viewing experience for anyone who has so much as opened a goddamn book once or twice. The score, aside from the legendary main theme, was almost unbearable in its hackneyed deployment. Oh yeah, and jpgrdnr really did hit the nail on the head with this one - when we're all willing to be honest with each other, the only appeal that these movies truly possess really does boil down to 'pew pew pew' and George Lucas constantly, feverishly whispering "lookwhaticandolookwhaticandolookwhaticando!" to his all-too-eager audience.
If a movie analogous to Star Wars (a uniquely edited, flimsily narrated, variably acted, wooden-character-populated, but nevertheless visually innovative orgy of new special effects) were to make its debut today, how do you honestly think you would respond to it, as in, critically?
We're talking about the movie that effectively made it possible for Kubrick to make 2001