I don’t think it’s comparable to marvel and whatnot. There were only 3 real Star Wars films as content for like 20 years. It happened under a way different system than the system we have now. Far more corporate.
Also, the originals contain anti Vietnam war allegory. The prequels get bogged down in politics because they really are about politics. They’re more political than you give them credit for. Doesn’t make the prequels good films, but they are different to marvel slop even if it’s for no other reason that times have simply changed.
The sequels on the other hand have much in common with Marvel.
On the vehicles - it’s a story made for kids. No one’s thinking about actual futuristic weaponry. Yeah, walkers are pretty dumb, but they’re new and pretty menacing in terms of sheer scale and the way they seem almost animal/monster like. They’re the vehicles of the big baddies. They’ve got legs because we’ve all seen plenty of tanks before.
If you’re going to claim that it’s a space western fantasy so and so, then analyse it as such. It is space western fantasy, it is essentially just a moral tale with lasers, it is just a space themed version of Seven Samurai. The importance is the story and the striking visuals that sell it as a bombastic space fantasy.
You're really shortselling Seven Samurai there. It had some silly plot elements, but I generally think it was much more thoughtful than Star Wars of all things.
OG starwars is genre redefining, space operas before were certifiable schlock but it mainstreamed & ever since the genre expects people to take it seriously. i suppose it is similar to the MCU in that regard, mainstreaming a domain of comics.
as far as artistic merit goes yeah its only the best scored & produced film in the genre ever that made everyone collectively lose their damn minds. things like that don't happen on accident man, saying the story is simple & it hams WW2 footage is mistaking intention for incompetence. its a tight film that relies on audience familiarity with the basics under all the techno-spiritual babble and stupid names.
It makes me sad to think there are young people, otherwise well behaved, who would rather say they hate the og star wars dogfights than admit the last Jedi was mostly a dud. How could you put down the death star run? Hanging my head.
If Star Wars had given James Cameron a production credit, not a single fucking Chapo would say a bad word about it on pain of Will whooping their asses.
The Originals are gorgeous. The Prequels are pretty good. Rogue One is breathtaking. Even the Sequels look nice.
The originals are schlock by today's standards, but what they were competing against when they came out was unadulterated trash.
You can see the actors fighting their hardest against Lucas' directorship to make the prequels good. The prequels are not good. The main redemption of the prequels is the glut of CGI developments that came about as a result.
Rogue One is great. Solo is not great and probably killed other independent films in the setting.
I think the AT-ATs are slightly justified in the context they are first used in, that being: deep snow, heavy snowfall, facing artillery fire. It doesn't fully make sense, but the long legs to carry a hard shell over deep snow and have a decent vantage point for firing at relatively distant targets isn't awful. They did more or less overrun their target with nothing more than some tie fighter support, iirc
Because they are approaching a target that has pretty heavy firepower and they lack consistent cover, smaller vehicles like the bikes on Endor are not a good option. For something really big -- and therefore somewhat slower, though still faster than AT-ATs, there is the question of repulsors kicking up snow in its own face, which would make return fire difficult. It also might just crush the snow into water (it's fake science, so we don't know how it would react) which would make it very bad at dealing with deep snow.
"So why not just bomb the base from the sky?" Well a) I think they did but b) the armor issue and c) they had to reach the ground at some point. AT-ATs are dumb and tacky but, if you have access to all the general types of vehicles we've seen in the series, I think they are the best choice.
Most Sci-Fi is as much about the social and political ramifications of space travel as the science.
And considering how Asamov's Foundation series speculated at coal powered interplanetary ships while Heinlein's Martians were functionally wizards themselves... The science of Sci-Fi has always been dubious.
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s comparable to marvel and whatnot. There were only 3 real Star Wars films as content for like 20 years. It happened under a way different system than the system we have now. Far more corporate.
Also, the originals contain anti Vietnam war allegory. The prequels get bogged down in politics because they really are about politics. They’re more political than you give them credit for. Doesn’t make the prequels good films, but they are different to marvel slop even if it’s for no other reason that times have simply changed.
The sequels on the other hand have much in common with Marvel.
On the vehicles - it’s a story made for kids. No one’s thinking about actual futuristic weaponry. Yeah, walkers are pretty dumb, but they’re new and pretty menacing in terms of sheer scale and the way they seem almost animal/monster like. They’re the vehicles of the big baddies. They’ve got legs because we’ve all seen plenty of tanks before.
If you’re going to claim that it’s a space western fantasy so and so, then analyse it as such. It is space western fantasy, it is essentially just a moral tale with lasers, it is just a space themed version of Seven Samurai. The importance is the story and the striking visuals that sell it as a bombastic space fantasy.
You're really shortselling Seven Samurai there. It had some silly plot elements, but I generally think it was much more thoughtful than Star Wars of all things.
Yeah, it’s a great film, but Lucas did basically rip its entire plot.
OG starwars is genre redefining, space operas before were certifiable schlock but it mainstreamed & ever since the genre expects people to take it seriously. i suppose it is similar to the MCU in that regard, mainstreaming a domain of comics.
as far as artistic merit goes yeah its only the best scored & produced film in the genre ever that made everyone collectively lose their damn minds. things like that don't happen on accident man, saying the story is simple & it hams WW2 footage is mistaking intention for incompetence. its a tight film that relies on audience familiarity with the basics under all the techno-spiritual babble and stupid names.
It makes me sad to think there are young people, otherwise well behaved, who would rather say they hate the og star wars dogfights than admit the last Jedi was mostly a dud. How could you put down the death star run? Hanging my head.
If Star Wars had given James Cameron a production credit, not a single fucking Chapo would say a bad word about it on pain of Will whooping their asses.
The Originals are gorgeous. The Prequels are pretty good. Rogue One is breathtaking. Even the Sequels look nice.
The originals are schlock by today's standards, but what they were competing against when they came out was unadulterated trash.
You can see the actors fighting their hardest against Lucas' directorship to make the prequels good. The prequels are not good. The main redemption of the prequels is the glut of CGI developments that came about as a result.
Rogue One is great. Solo is not great and probably killed other independent films in the setting.
The sequels are just bad.
how
:bugs-no:
I think the AT-ATs are slightly justified in the context they are first used in, that being: deep snow, heavy snowfall, facing artillery fire. It doesn't fully make sense, but the long legs to carry a hard shell over deep snow and have a decent vantage point for firing at relatively distant targets isn't awful. They did more or less overrun their target with nothing more than some tie fighter support, iirc
yeah how bad could they be if they won the battle :think-about-it:
The AT-STs consistently eat shit, tbf
This is a world where repulsorlifts exist, "realistically" why would you bother with legs?
(The correct answer is: Who the hell the cares? AT-ATs ARE SICK AS HELL BRO)
Because they are approaching a target that has pretty heavy firepower and they lack consistent cover, smaller vehicles like the bikes on Endor are not a good option. For something really big -- and therefore somewhat slower, though still faster than AT-ATs, there is the question of repulsors kicking up snow in its own face, which would make return fire difficult. It also might just crush the snow into water (it's fake science, so we don't know how it would react) which would make it very bad at dealing with deep snow.
"So why not just bomb the base from the sky?" Well a) I think they did but b) the armor issue and c) they had to reach the ground at some point. AT-ATs are dumb and tacky but, if you have access to all the general types of vehicles we've seen in the series, I think they are the best choice.
there are wizards in that movie it's clearly not completely grounded in science
There's gravity on the Millennium Falcon even before the wizards get there.
it's just not even remotely a movie about the science of space and the fact it doesn't care isn't really an issue
Most Sci-Fi is as much about the social and political ramifications of space travel as the science.
And considering how Asamov's Foundation series speculated at coal powered interplanetary ships while Heinlein's Martians were functionally wizards themselves... The science of Sci-Fi has always been dubious.