Solid Snake

So would that be more pointed in the direction of the script or the direction? Granted, this one sounds like it is his baby to a degree.

rocket1312

Return of the Jedi has its moments, but frankly so does the Phantom Menace. You could make all sorts of arguments as to why it ultimately doesn't work, but for me the thing that is hardest to watch is just how completely uninteresting the three leads have become. Ford and Fisher both looked bored to death and whatever spark they had together is completely gone. You can pick just about any scene from Empire that the two are in and it will be more compelling than anything they do in Jedi. Luke has more to work with, but when last we left him in Empire, he had let his impetuous side get the better of him and had been completely humbled. When he shows up in Jedi, all of a sudden he's a super-hero. Looking beyond the three leads, Vader has been almost completely neutered with the appearance of the emperor. Heck, even Lando, who had some level of complexity given that he chose to sell-out his friend in order to save himself basically just becomes another guy. Sure that space battle is impressive (some of the greatest special effects of all-time), but I think it pales in comparison to the first film on a dramatic level. And I don't care what anyone says, recycling the death star is lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy. They literally could have done anything else. Anything. Instead they just played back the first film. Ugh.

Timber

That's a good point. Vader goes from being a lap dog in ANH to being totally bad ass in ESB to a pussy in RotJ. They didn't keep him on his character arc that they established in ESB. He's sort of just there for most of the movie.

Josh-da-man

Yeah, I'm aware of the plan Gary Kurtz revealed for the whole saga, and the thing is that the Episode VI that he described didn't sound all that different from ROTJ.

"Leia was to be elected 'Queen of her people' leaving her isolated. Han was to die. Luke confronted Vader and went on with his life alone." Really sounds a lot like ROTJ... you have the Han story being closed out, Luke confronting Vader, and Leia being elected Queen of her people makes it sound like the Empire would have been, at least mostly, dealt with in that movie.

And then the sequel trilogy (VII-VIII-IX) would have followed the adventures of Luke Skywalker as a Jedi Knight, introduced his sister, and, finally, revealed the Emperor in the final film. Luke going out alone, Leia becoming queen and being isolated makes it seem like the Rebellion would have ended in VI. The reveal of the Emperor at the end almost makes him seem like sound Sauron-type of figure.

Mike86

I've been watching the original trilogy lately and decided to pop in Return of the Jedi last night as I haven't seen it in a while. I do think its still very good like I had said but I can see where some people have problems with it looking at it again. It does feel rushed and like it should have been more than one film.

It gets the key things done that needed to have been resolved but the saga overall probably could have been better if it were split into at least two films. I don't know that it necessarily needed to go up to Episode IX if that was the original plan but I think going to Episode VII would have been beneficial at the time the original trilogy was made.

hanshotfirst1138

I haven't watched the Holy Trilogy in SO long. I wound up so better after the special editions fiasco, that I divorce myself from all things related to the franchise. That's part of the reason I keep hoping on those 4K remasters, so that maybe one day I can watch it again at a quality level better than VHS.

While I don't down that a lot of this is true, we should also remember to take some of what Kurtz says with a little bit of a grain of salt. While George Lucas is probably lower on my list of favorite people than anyone in the world, Kurtz was probably pretty bitter after getting kicked off by Lucas, and as such, I can't help but think he'd embellish here and there from time to time. That said, there's obvious evidence to support what he says given how scattershot ROTJ feels.

Mike86

Its too bad that Shadows of the Empire couldn't have been a film. Granted I realize it was written after the fact and probably wouldn't have worked out but that was an overall good bridge between The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. It was probably good due in part though because of the fact it had the advantage of being written later and was able to fill in the gaps. The only way it likely would have worked as a film though is if it was made as an animated feature or something since the cast would have aged noticably between 1983 when the last entry was filmed and 1996 when the book was written. Plus it would have messed up the way the films were numbered.

rocket1312

You really should check out Harmy's despecialized versions. I hadn't seen the films all the way through since the days of vhs when I finally got a hold of them and they absolutely rekindled any love I may have lost post SEs/prequels.

If you're not already familiar with them, I would highly recommend J.W. Rinzler's "making of" trilogy of books. The best part about them is that the only sources used for the books are documents and interviews from the actual time period the films were made/released. The Jedi book is especially fascinating as it contains excerpts from the story conferences with Lucas, Kasdan, and Marquand. The short version is that Jedi's story was kinda, sorta slapped together and it's pretty clear that Kasdan was not a fan of the direction it went.

stvn1974

I am hoping the tagline will be "You loved the originals, then they were ruined and you were given crappy prequels, now get ready for an all new adventure brought to you by the director who ruined Star Trek". Is that too wordy to fit on a poster?

RichC2

He ruined Star Trek? Wow, that's news to me. I thought The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis beat him to the punch by a long shot.

The original Star Wars trilogy was limping along by the middle of the third movie, I'm sort of amazed it lasted as long as it did but I guess it speaks loads to the world Lucas created. Or something like that.

Solid Snake

ruined Star Trek from dying possibly. ST would be dead if it wasn't for Abrams films.

Preterite

It amazes me how butthurt some Trekkies are over the Abrahams film. It was miles better than a lot of the previous movies and TV episodes. Shit, they even went out of their way to establish that the new films take place in a different timeline and all of the original crap still happened. So somewhere, James T. is still tripping balls on the Teepee Planet.



What more do they want?

johnnysd

Agree. I think Empire is dramatically better than other OT films which I think are good (Star Wars) and sort of boring (ROTJ) but with a fantastic scene for the most part with Emperor Luke and Vader.

To me Empire is one of the best movies ever. A 98/100 type movie. Star Wars would be like an 80 and ROTJ would be maybe 60.

nando820

Whats a better sequel "Empire", "Dark knight" or Dumb and Dumberer To"

Paul_SD

I won't (promise) go off on another long rant about RoTJ here. I've said more than enough in the other thread. It's a truly terrible sequel unless your critical criteria is "I want to see stuff happen, stuff happen, stuff happen, then the end." But as a continuation or expansion upon the events and characters from the previous films? Horrible.
As Brad Bird says in his forward to the Making of Return book from a year ago (some of which I quote in the other thread) one of the big problems with it (in my mind maybe the biggest, over arching even the derivative uninspired plot elements) is continuity of character. These are simply NOT the same characters from the previous films.

Just take Luke in particular. The Luke of RoTJ is like Barney Fife- he is totally clueless to how incompetent he is and has been and yet still swaggers around like he is king shit. Why is someone who failed miserably after dismissing the advice of his mentors, strutting around like a self confident bad-ass? Why is he not circumspect and suffering from a struggle of confidence after the previous events?
And then why after marshaling this impressively staged rescue, does he then go back to being the meek and simpering young student a scene later?
And as far as the last confrontation being this powerful event...Put yourself in Luke's shoes and let's see a how a real human would react. You've just found out the man you've though was your father is not your real father. Your biological father is this other guy who you only know as the town child molester. He's also been stalking and trying to kill your friends.
What is more reasonable motivation for you in this instance?
Do you
a) want to go to him and convince him his actions aren't his fault and then try rehabilitate him?
b) stay as far away as possible?
c) avenge your friends, save the rest of the children in the town from his predation, and kill him- an act which would serve as some sort of psyche-severing of that existential bond that you see now exists between you and this ultimate evil?
Keep in mind you aren't Buddah or Jesus Christ or a plastic action figure...you're supposed to be a human being making decisions that are emotionally relatable.

Would love to take Daniels comments at face value. We'll see if Abrahms and others can find a way to expand a story in a smart way that is continuing from a monumentally full-of-shit third act.

TGM

I love this revisionist history about how awful ROTJ is. Other than the Ewoks, I don't recall ever hearing anything negative about ROTJ through the years/decades up until recently. by fanboys. here.

hanshotfirst1138

Where was Brad Bird interviewed about ROTJ? Fuck, I want the OOT so badly! Whatever Abrams did or didn't ruin, the worst crime is that it didn't convince Paramount to do proper remasters of any of the other films .

Paul_SD

He wasn't interviewed (as far as I know)- but he wrote the forward to Making Of Return Of The Jedi.
There are quotes from it in this post, along with some early drafts of the opening that Lucas subsequently changed (for the worse imo)

Michael Corvin

It's been 30 years. What love people had for Ewoks at 10 kinda dissipates with age.* Kinda goes for the whole film as well. Also, after the Prequel trilogy disaster, people are now to re-evaluating their feelings for the OT as well.


*Personally, I don't mind the Ewoks

Mike86

I cringed pretty bad watching it last night (watching the 2004 DVD set as I refuse to buy the Blu-ray set due to the addition of the Vader "noooo" at the end of Return of the Jedi) during the fucking celebration scene at the end. It just goes on for too long and seems pointless and I hate that Jar-Jar's voice is even there. Also the Jedi Rocks part at Jabba's Palace is pretty terrible too. I think of the original trilogy Return of the Jedi had some of the worst changes made to it. I really hope we get a release of the unaltered original trilogy too.

I don't love the Ewoks but I've never really had a major problem with them I guess. Yeah they were put in the film most likely for the sole purpose of appealing to kids but overall they've never bothered me much I guess.

Paul_SD

You'll almost never find me mentioning Ewoks in my voluminous tirades against the film.
They are and always were obvious pandering to the 8 year old demo the film's narrative was targeting.
But the film could have still survived them had the basic character and plot elements been more nuanced, intelligent, and just plain thoughful.

Matt

From a HuffPo interview last year with J.W. Rinzler, the author of the recent "Making Of" books:

In a way, "Jedi"'s trajectory is similar to "Empire'"s. They both got mixed reviews, and a lot of the actors back then in 1982 didn't even like "Empire" that much. They really preferred "Star Wars" and they preferred "Jedi." Then, over the years, "Empire" has kind of appeared as a lot of people's favorite. I was taking to Guillermo del Toro about this. Already with "Jedi," you have another generation of filmgoers going to the theater. And for people like me, "Jedi" was already a kind of "The Phantom Menace" in that we're like, "You've got to be kidding me with these Ewoks. I just cannot relate to this. These are little people in suits and it looks ridiculous." There's already a generational divide. But those kids who were seven and eight who saw Jedi -- for a lot of people, "Jedi" is their favorite film. And del Toro is saying it will be the same way for the prequels.

This is kind of my experience growing up. Star Wars and Jedi were my favorites (seven years old during Jedi's theatrical run), and Empire was kind of boring. Empire got a lot better as I got older, but Jedi got worse. Star Wars is just as good as it always was.

rocket1312

Revisionist or not, the proof is in the pudding. All one has to do is watch the films and their qualities (or lack thereof) are blatantly obvious. Return of the Jedi was the fist movie I can ever remember seeing in the theater. It was also the first vhs tape I owned. I loved it. I don't love it anymore. And as Paul SD mentioned, the Ewoks have so very little to do with it.

RichC2

Sweet, I was ahead of the curve!

I didn't see Star Wars until I was in my late teens, it took quite a few tries to get through all of RotJ.

joe_b

Even as a kid, I never cared for Luke's characterization in RotJ. Hamill's theatrical line readings didn't really help matters -- it just didn't match the character I knew from the previous two films.