There was some chatter recently at some point about how the next Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens is going to be not just as good as The Empire Strikes Back was. No, not just as good as - better than. That's essentially impossible.
Complicating this claim is who it might be it's being made about. Somebody who saw the original Star Wars in a theater on release year when they were ten? (Twenty? Forty?) The people that made the first movies IV-VI? (The people that made the last three I-III? Are making these three VII to IX?) Perhaps a twelve-year-old who first watched Episodes I-VI in order, numerical story-chronological order, just last year for the first time. Maybe an eighty-year-old who first watched IV-VI then I-III in release-chronological order just today for the first time. Somebody who started in on Episode I as an eighteen-year-old, saw I-III and who has never gone back and watched IV-VI. Somebody who hasn't ever seen any. Somebody who watched a random one, hated it, and didn't watch any more.
Instead is the claim not about who will think the newest one is better - but that on some sort of imagined objective basis, VII will just simply be a better movie than V was. Not how much it makes, as that isn't necessarily (and often isn't) a particularly good gauge of the quality, or what the fans think of it, or anything else. Such as that out of the existing six movies, Episode I is
(in an absolute-dollars in-theaters box-office-take sense) the highest-grossing domestically - likely VII will take that over, no matter what, it being the first movie in a number of years. It's pretty certain this movie will indeed draw huge numbers of people for a while everywhere it's released, and make a lot of money. So, no, not what it earns. Better as in on some notional trusted qualified film expert opinion of movie quality, or what officially-sanctioned top-tier fans say about it, or using the sliding scale of motion picture merit system they secretly use at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Better in an absolute objective measurable sense that doesn't exist.
As far as better in the actual world to somebody or another though, to and for whom would it be better? That's a question. To be better, as in be superior in general overall on most any scale, and regardless of how that superiority is measured. (Say, gets the most votes on a majority of variables in random phone sampling
of some number of questions of this movie compared to the the other one. However that would be done.) Let's say then that the claim is VII is better to those who also saw IV when it came out. Who has watched all six so far as they were released. Who has been a fan of (or even disliked or hated one or more of) the six movies that currently exist in public. Regardless if that person today forty-four (6 in 1977) or one-hundred-fifteen (78 in 1977).
A person that's seen all six movies so far in the order in which they were released around release, they will think Episode VII is better than Episode V.
Not likely.
Sure, always in motion is the future. How good or bad this new movie is "in everyone's opinion" and what it's better or worse than on some enjoyment meter, not a fact. If this newest Star Wars movie is better, after some comparative analysis or another of opinions, that's not a done deal yet at all. Since the movie isn't even out yet, it's not been established that it is fully without doubt impossible that it can or will be better. Better, to whatever extent something subjective can be superior or inferior to something else subjective, to somebody somewhere be that from one person to everyone currently in existence on this planet of ours in this galaxy so very near. Even to somebody that doesn't particularly enjoy science fiction or action or anything but nonfiction.
Here though are some of the reasons that at least highly suggest this claimed improvement can't be accomplished. Reasons to consider in examining the contentions that VII FA will be better or can't even be as good as V ESB was.
First what we might call a little background, somewhat about ESB and about SW the movie before it and about those after ESB in our galaxy timespace; RotJ, PM, AotC, RotS. Episode V was a sequel after all. A sequel to Episode IV, which wasn't of course a sequel to anything, because Episodes I and II and III were all backrevs. To put it another way, the "prequel trilogy" was stories that really could have been about anything, as long as it ended eventually in something like the ways we already knew it ended.
So ESB was a sequel, and more so, it was a sequel in a time when sequels were almost without fail considered only a money-grubbing recipe for disaster. Sequels, a lack of creativity causing one to not come up with something new. A story drawn on too long to fit into a single motion picture. At least in the eyes of many in the industry, common logic was more along the lines that sequels were just tawdry. More to the point, assumed to be (and often ending up) as worse, inferior, not as good as the originals. At least for single stand-alone non-serialized material, which at the time before its success, SW wasn't. The movie itself at the time was a gamble, and story-wise, that ending is pretty solid regardless; good guys win, there's a ceremony, nothing to worry about.
After the success of SW though (which depending on metric, is still the second highest domestic-grossing inflation-adjusted movie of all time) we got a sequel. And what a sequel; ESB was very much none of that "common logic". At the least even in hindsight. No, it was an improvement in a number of ways, while still retaining much of the charm of SW. Not everyone got it, any more than they got the first one. In 1983 though, how many people who wanted to see ESB walked out of the theater in the middle, or even how many left grumbling or talking about how they were disappointed? We might guess the chances are slim to none, and Slim left town.
Which pretty much dovetails into one of the first reasons VII almost certainly won't be better than V, even if it gets close to being as good. It's not a direct sequel to a story that captured the imagination of an entire generation. Episode VII isn't going to be what came before and then continued. It isn't Episode V about the people from Episode IV.
The adventures of Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, R2D2 and C-3PO. Our mysterious evil telekinetic magician in the black armor. Actors like Peter Cushing and Alec Guiness with the non-uber-famous-at-the-time others.... Well of course in ESB one of their characters is dead and the other is a ghost, but let's talk about SW then as more background to a sequel sorts of things that are pertinent here.
In May 1977 when Star Wars was released (that is, before it became Episode IV A New Hope) there was really nothing much at all like it on the big screen and maybe even otherwise. Science Fiction wasn't like that. There were by and large no special effects at the time that looked as real. Even now 35 years later, one might say the look has held up, it still looks real. Not real real certainly, but real in a way many other special effects of the time didn't even much hold up - even when they were current, much less decades later. In addition, Science Fiction at the time was not a thing (by and large) so there wasn't anything to compare it to. Especially when it came to movies, even more especially when those movies drew and drew and drew crowds. Drew big over a long period of time. The movie itself, 121 minutes where you don't even want to get up and miss a minute, engrossing in so many ways. Also where in large part, the special effects and the science fiction were unimportant. At least not at all the real point of the story.
Will VII be able to roll how things are today back to how they were in those times in the late 1970s and early 1980s in movies? Some hope so, it seems they'll be disappointed. December release date? Disney? 2015? Where's the movie that lead into this one, what sort of buzz is there about before? Not much except the buzz that this movie (and the next two) "must be better than" the last three movies? Sure, episodes I-III were telling a story we already knew, and they were movies that started in 1999 after a 16 year break. That last story we got ended 10 years ago - and it of course doesn't lead into this next movie and story. Rather, it lead into the first movie and story that predated it. We are getting a non-sequel and we are getting it thirty-two actual years after the fact (RotJ 1983).
Too, established cultural phenomenons now are not rising ones back then. Because when we talk about the first movie (that ESB was an extension of) we are talking about what was a new thing, not what we've been waiting 32 years to get back to. So we ask, what was it about what led into ESB. Sure, plainly, it was SW three years before it. That setup doesn't exist decades after release, but it did 3 years after it came out. Us? We don't have anything from 2012 that leads into FA like SW in 1977 lead into ESB in 1980.
For SW / A New Hope / Episode IV we had such as mothers taking their teenage sons to the movie, not just once, but numbers of times. Few theaters showed it, you had to go someplace to see it. And then, wait in line, to buy tickets, to wait in line, to go see it. Then see it you did, after waiting for it and anticipating that for hours. On a gigantic screen with the new Dolby sound added in for extra benefit. So SW was amazing; new, unique. Even though it was Samurai, and Serial, and David against Goliath; it was unprecedented. Not just as a story, not just as movie-craft, but in who went to see it over and over again. We might suggest that it wasn't just some Science Fiction demographic that made it the top grossing movie of the time, it was society. It was a fully unexpectedly different target demographic that started it all.
Thus once the first established things, ESB was more that what was before it. Better and the same. Informative, filled with tension, action-packed. Even clearer fancier special effects yet that still didn't steal the scene, another a science fiction backdrop that didn't punch you in the skull about how SCIFI it was. In an age before cell phones and the Internet, after (only?) 3 years of waiting for a sequel. Three years, and without much of a constant barrage of marketing and talk and such as we get now, or at least not in the same ways. Everyone got to see what was next for their plucky heroes. ESB at a time when George Lucas is still in his 30s (36 in 1980) and has the funds to do an updated deal. Without the years to dull everything creatively and without the time and fame to cause the performers to move away onward and upward. Compared to IV, V had a better look, faster pace, continuing with the interesting character development and adding new worlds. What's up with Vader, why does he want Luke so badly he'll stop at nothing. Dogfights in the asteroids. Escaping away with the rest of the trash. Love. Conflict. Camaraderie. Mentors. Rivals. Enemies. All both interpersonal and on a galactic scale.... Well, you certainly know what's in it.
From the start where the probes are being deployed, to the end where the hospital ship is flying off, it's our familiar friends from three years before, some new ones, all ending on a huge crescendo of a cliffhanger. In between, the subtext of the romance between Leia and Han, with and without wondering about Luke, who is off on new adventures alone weaved into old adventures with the rest. The jaw-dropping slap in the face super surprise about why the Emperor and Vader even care about young Skywalker. How do you follow up on the secret that was revealed there? How.
Now, what is there though? There the kids. How about a new program to restore order. Some old and new enemies and fears to upset the balance. Whatever's been going on in The New Republic. The next generation of Jedi. Yeah, well. That's cool and everything. But most all the heroes and villains, most everyone's new. The players, old and new, their names are bigger. Perhaps not all of them, but maybe we remember them all from other things first. Certainly, the questions and expectations are vastly different. The question isn't what's going to happen to and between Luke, Han, Leia. The curiosity isn't about how much more awesome will Episode V be than Episode IV was. No, it's comparisons to the last trilogy, and what we're asking here, 1983 to 2015, how will the start of this third trilogy compare to the middle of the first trilogy.
What else. The budget and tech are 2014, does it look like everything else? Will it all be teal and orange now. Have we made the CGI look like anything other than CGI. Do the ships still fly right-side up. Will we have other sets of comedy-relief like J-JB and Watto, both more covertly demeaning and far less entertaining than our 'droids ever were. Will we have almost infallible villains like Palpatine, heroes blasted into space like Mace, OMFG they killed Qui-Gon surprise, all coupled with villains so perplexingly inept they will let their enemy jump out of a tube and then just stare while they get cleaved in twain horizontally. Will there be greedy inscrutable space corporations. Will there be crazy names like Dooku and Tyranus, and why did they do that to poor Christopher Lee anyway. Why didn't we get more about the end of the Emperor's rein in spring 1986 Movies about after the second Death Star gets destroyed, why not a film somewhat akin to Zahn's The Thrawn Trilogy in 1991-1993. Why did we get Anakin's overly long origins (and a sad tale of a fall from grace due to the trickery of another) from 1999-2005. Or just that the Vader in IV to VI was much more interesting, leave it alone. None of those things we got in I-III existed before 1999, and one can easily suggest such additions and background information doesn't add to the mystique and sense of wonder, regardless if you're 8 or 80.
Those and more. Not just the questions about if Disney or not, Kathleen Kennedy
or not, or if/how/when/why they're going to mess things up... Just because well that's what they do. How about Jeffrey Jacob Abrams, a lot might hinge on that. He's done a lot of good things, perhaps one might say some awesome ones. Although some of them have ended before their time properly (like Lost and Alias) and we could also ask well how involved was he day-to-day in any of the past projects, in the nitty gritty, giving the signature spin on things or not. (Unlike say where when Tim Burton is anywhere at all involved in something, you know without a doubt that it is going to look and feel and act and be exceedingly Burtonish.) The people in charge of Star Wars movies corporate-wise might have taken a lot of control here from those such as directors and costumers and artists apparently, such as removing the impact of some number of the helpers and cronies of those that are involved in actually creating the movies. Yes, all that control or lack thereof may or may not be a good thing, but it's something now that is still a mystery. Does it add, take away, or not matter? It's possible management might have ended up taking away good while adding not so good. Yet any such questions about JJ (or any others involved in directing and producing and artisticking) might all boil down to a simpler mix of flavors. A more distilled question that likely nobody can answer yet -- is the creative team for VII at least on par with the one with V in content, context, and implementation. Can the people doing things for VII be at least a similar fit as Irvin Kershner, Lawrence Kasdan, Leigh Brackett, Richard Marquand and others were. Perhaps we might also ask similar things of the people on the business and managerial sides, and how that all might impact the creative aspects. Or ask if the new stars of this new story can compare to the first stars Hamill, Ford, Fisher. Jones, Prowse, Anderson. Guinness. That goes for even the people (and/or CGI) that are returning as well. Well, whatever the questions or answers, they aren't the same ones anyone much in the public would have been asking about V. Not the same at all, regardless of whatever went on behind the scenes back in the early 1980s. In retrospect, which we didn't have then to compare anything to anyway. At least nothing much to compare to to begin with, almost certainly not using media and communication methods that no longer exist in the ways they did then, using methods now that didn't at all exist then back then.
We might also go elsewhere movie-wise, content-wise, and ask if the recent Star Trek reboot movies were better than the past, TV or movie. Ask if anyone could at all make some claim this new everything was superior to the old universe. How does that sort of question potentially apply to VII versus V? Given that we're looking at some similar elements, and some exact ones, even if it's just movie-making parts in who and how, there's a correlation of some sort. Yet also very different. Here with Episode VII we are not rebooting, we are continuing with a new story that contains elements of the past ones, including some of the original actors/characters returning. There's no real comparison between things then it seems. Our three Heroes of the Galactic Republic are not too much like a time-traveling Vulcan science officer plopped into a situation with a time-traveling megalomaniac that has vastly supreme anger issues and a bunch of illogic, since he can you know travel in time but has forgotten that. With TFA, there's nothing like a reworked backstory to the established timeline of a 1960s television show and followup movies from 1979 to 1994 and after. No real comparison, but we could ask if Abram's vision for the new was as good as that of the old at least, maybe. How much influence is there though? Might any of those sorts of questions or answers apply here.... Likely not, although like the other questions, nobody much in the public will actually know that until potentially at least December 18th 2015. Probably not until later, over the days, weeks, months, years, after the first public showing of the entire movie to the entire public. Perhaps not until VIII, and maybe even not until a few years after IX.
Maybe the question of better just all ends up being one sort of a question instead. Can a 2015 first-of-three movie about new people set decades later top what was expected and looked forward to with the 1980 second-of-three movie continuing a specific story? Maybe the answer is one and simpler as well. Probably not unless they have actually figured out how to recreate nostalgia in the minds of the audience. Discovered how to replicate how we thought and reacted thirty-five years ago to a sequel to a new and the unique thing in the world of the late 70s and early 80s.
I certainly hope that all these people are able to somehow recreate either the magic we remember, or even just that we think we remember. Whatever mindset we all go into this with, and regardless of box-office, I do hope that. I just don't think they can. Yet perhaps I'm like Tarkin in the opposite, and I vastly underestimate their chances.
No comments:
Post a Comment