Haha! Good joke. My optimistic side hopes that comments by Abrams and Kennedy about taking Star Wars "back to its roots" will mean that Episode VII won't rely so heavily on green screen as the prequels.
But I didn't do that. It's one indicator, not the whole. Because bleakness doesn't last. Different art exists in different times. You obviously didn't see Hidden Fortress. I discount its influence because its influence was very minor. I went into that movie knowing about the supposed influence, and I could barely see it. Because there are many stories that follow the path of legendary tales. Different ones have different meanings. And even stories derived from ancient ones are not derived directly from legendary tales - they are distilled through time. They are based on stories which are based on stories which are based on stories which are based on ancient tales. As I've said, if you had a direct retelling of an ancient story, even with Star Wars-style setting and special effects, it wouldn't make sense to us. Because the US is the world superpower. I keep telling you. We are in a different power position, so movies about power have different meaning for us than everyone else.
You are doing by giving specific timeframes to certain ideals. As if movies or song of the 70`s would all be marked by bleakness. But once again why does bleakness doesn`t last? Is bleakness defined by a time frame? Time isn`t defined by one movement. Just because there were Hughes films in the 80`s doesn´t mean a Last American Virgin can`t occur in the same time. So a movie that affects plot and style is less influence than having x wings and a gunner. And I´m not saying that the movie is this huge influence but that I think it`s BS how you discount that influence and yet concentrate on the WW2 influence so far justified in some action scenes. But once again, the reasons you gave are the reasons of stories thru time and everywhere. Those were the actions that you gave when I first asked you what makes this such an american story that explains things. You can go and say it`s different meanings to everyone and then say things that are universal to state your point of the uniqueness to your country. But that is the point. You keep telling it as if those thing are unique when they are universal. How are things about power different. Based on what? All those things you first mentioned are things that people all over the world go and don`t see powerful. You keep saying that americans see this movie different. Based on what? How is it proven that the reasons american like these movies is different from others. Star Wars is my favorite series of movie and I have read a lot of opinions from foreign and americans and I although I see some different, it`s a pretty universal love. You`re one if the only one who is trying to give it a nationalistic reason. Why are your reasons the true ones to show how it`s a different take for americans than for foreigners. Especially when I first asked you and you listed stuff that is pretty universal.
Not sure if you can use Star Wars international popularity as proof that it isn't quintessentially American. e.g., there isn't a more American type of movies than Westerns yet that genre took the world by storm. It's more proof of how dominant American popular culture has been around the world since roughly the emergence of mass media.
Compare the kind of sci-fi that was made in other parts of the world in the same decade: Vadim made the cult cheese-fest "Barbarella". Tarkovsky made "Solaris". Both of these features, in their own way, could not be further removed from what Lucas did in SW.
Wasn`t all the stories prior to Lone Ranger failure about how risky it was to do a western because they typically don`t do well internationally? I love Spaghetti westerns and I know they were big but I specifically heard the lack of relatively in newer markets to why Lone Ranger was going to suffer. That being said, when it did, it was not necesarily because of that only since it supposedly is a very bad movie. That´s another point, but my point is what makes Star Wars quintessentially american as opposed to just a classic story? That`s the point, that to me the reasons first given have a universal view from classic time and is part of the popularity of it. Sure there is a dominant view of media but I don`t see what is essentially american to how good it was made. Like I said, Lucas and crew made a great movie which is key to it´s popularity but I don`t think that it should definitely looked as this different view because of the quality compared to Barbarella (which I think it`s awful). Wasn`t Flash Gordon an american film? It`s quality related to Star Wars is also pretty different and they both are from the same country. Don`t what one tells compared to the other.
You are reversing what I said. An art form can be unique to a time period and can represent it without forcing the time period to be wholly devoted to that one art form. That impressionist paintings were in ascendance in 1870-1890 means something about that period even though people kept painting portraits and landscapes and dicks on bathroom walls. Your point seems to be that philosophies and politics and technologies of the world have no effect on art, which is impossible to accept. It totally does. Action isn't a throwaway - it is a language of film just as much as words. Like spoken language it uses allusions to aid understanding and sway opinion. They fight in the style of The Good War so people see and feel that this is also a Good War. Only if you reduce the story so much you are left with the tiny bits in common. The Fifth Element is also a hero's journey, but it has a very different theme and message and look and everything - it is practically the opposite of Star Wars and if you reduce it to just "hero's journey" you miss everything important. I will try to explain this again. Suppose I wrote a book called Rafael Hernandez is a Terrible Person. And everyone in the world loves it. Great - it's universally accepted. Now, suppose your family liked it. Doesn't that say something about them compared to another fan of the book who knows nothing of you? And suppose you liked it too. Doesn't that say something unique about you? You can't possibly like it in the same way everyone else likes it - you would have to have some self-loathing or some other unusual personality trait for that to be true.
No my point is that people have a tendency to create whole trends on certain things that paint time periods as homogeneous stuff and betrays the reality of the situation that not everything was like that. Grunge was huge in the 90`s and it can`t be denied that it`s a product of that era. But as time pass people paint it as if it was the music of that era and there weren`t a lot of music and different styles to the point that some people act as if it was the only music and the trend of it. Thus to somebody who thinks only grunge was hit a C and C music factory would be weird for them to happen during the time if they have that mentality.Thus same in the 70`s and the bleakness of the time. The good war? How many people even now that it`s in the style of WW2 films? I call BS on this. If you are going to say Hidden Fortress influence wasn`t much even if it affects both action and plot and then proclaim the WW2 shots as the language of the film. You are doing so aribitrarily to fit your point. Everything important according to who? You keep talking about the themes but the thing is those themes and message you mention were pretty universal to the hero story but somehow you`re trying to apropiate them as uniquely american or unique specific to your movie experience. Your argument could precisely be made about Fifth Element and yet your arguing as if the movies were from 2 different plantes which I suppose is and argument that has to be made (although I`m not saying either that they are very alike either). Except you keep implying that my family likes it for different reasons that the rest of the world does, which isn`t necesarily true. And if you then list the reasons and give the reasons for liking them and they are things that are universally accepted, then they don`t have a case for saying it`s for different reasons and they are unique in liking the book. Some of the arguments you`re giving are crazy specific for anybody and yet it`s the true way that people feel about it? I still think your singling out stuff that shouldn´t be singling out and giving national characteristics to things that are universal.
Personally, I'm just kind of astonished by the reports that they are planning to rely on Ford, Hamill, and Fisher for the lead roles in Episode 7. I can't believe the powers-that-be above Abrams (most notably Kathleen Kennedy, but also any of the other money people) are signing off on that. I simply have to believe that these reports stating they are the "lead" roles are getting it wrong-- that in truth they perhaps have larger supporting roles than they did in the Michael Arndt script (that has been shitcanned, apparently), but the "leads" are still some new faces. We should be hearing casting and plot details fairly soon.
No, it's perfect. They can still do the walking down the corridor/sitting on couches scenes which take up 80% of modern Star Wars movies, and then the action stuff will be CGI so they can jump around like Yoda. It will be spectacular. We will get 40 years of Galactic history from the old guard giving exposition while sitting on couches. Or walking down corridors.
You underestimate the vision of JJ Abrams. They will be sitting on couches that go down corridors. The couches, of course, will be CGI. And the corridors. Also CGI.
If Solo is 73, then JarJar Binks would have to be, like, 100. That would actually be kind of awesome. He could be all grumpy and complaining about how things have gone to crap and how the youth of the day don't know or appreciate anything.