Why The New Star Wars is Kind of Like Creed, But Not As Good (No Spoilers)

(Image taken from: starwars.wikia.com)

It's Sunday, and by now, you've likely already watched the new Star Wars movie. And if you haven't, then you're probably in a cineplex watching it right now. If you're the latter, read this later. If you're the former, read this now. There are no spoilers either way, so you don't have to worry if you're in the third group that might be seeing it next week.

Now, while I know everybody LOVES this new movie, I feel kind of cold to it. It's not that it's bad. It's just that it's recycled meat. I wanted a Harold's sandwich, and I got Subway instead. It has several callbacks to the original trilogy, but most of it is just fan service. And that's okay. I don't have a problem with a film that rests on its own laurels. If any franchise deserves it, it's Star Wars, especially after the last abysmal trilogy. I'll compare it to Street Fighter III. Now, stay with me for a moment. After Street Fighter II, people wanted the next evolution of the series. But then, no, they realized they didn't, since SF III introduced brand new characters and was totally different from its predecessor. Where was Guile? Where was Blanka? M. Bison? Nowhere to be seen. In many ways, it was viewed as interesting but a failure at the same time that didn't grip the mainstream audience as much as it could have. Street Fighter IV, on the other hand, was seen as a return to form. All of your favorite World Warriors were brought back to the fight, and everything seemed back on track, even if it was really just SF 2 with a new coat of paint. Now, I'm not saying that Street Fighter III is comparable to the prequels. God no. I actually LOVE SF 3 and consider it my favorite Street Fighter. But it was something different when people really just wanted more of the same. And that's what Episode VII is. More of the same. That's not to say that's a bad thing. But it's been done before, and the film is more just simpering fan service than anything else. It's for all the scorned fans out there who wanted to love Star Wars again. This film was for them. All the rest, well, you're welcome as well. The Mouse House doesn't discriminate.

(Image taken from: en.wikipedia.org)

But there was another movie this year that also recycled from its past, but this time, to great effect. Creed, in every way, plucked and pulled the best elements of Rocky and sprinkled them all throughout the recent Creed. But here's the difference between Creed and Episode VII, and why the former was fantastic and the latter was lacking. Creed recognizes the past and adds it into the story, but it doesn't circle the entire plot around it. It's there, and it's relevant, but it's more for thematic purposes (Rocky is still fighting. It's just cancer this time), rather than for the audience to clap and whistle everytime something nostalgic graces the screen.

In every way, it seems like Episode VII was a mea culpa to the fans and a suggestion that we're turning this ship around. It also felt like it was just building toward more films, while Creed stood tall on its own and felt fresh, even though it really wasn't fresh at all. Creed had heart, and The Force Awakens felt devoid of heart. Sure, there's hope, and a more apt subheader for this film would have been "Another New Hope." But it's really just a film for the fans, and nothing more. Creed was a genuinely good story that tugged at the heart strings, and for the next SW, I want more Creed and less The Force Awakens. Hopefully, they make that happen.

Three Solid Reasons Why The Hobbit Trilogy is Worse Than the Star Wars Prequels

(Image taken from: www.inspiringwallpapers.net)

(Image taken from: moviepilot.com)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing can be worse than the Star Wars prequels, right? Wrong! I genuinely believe that the Lord of the Rings prequels are actually WORSE than the Star Wars prequels and I have three solid reasons why. Read:

1. The Star Wars Prequels Look and Feel Entirely Different from the Original Star Wars Trilogy, while the Hobbit movies look exactly like The Lord of the Rings

Here's probably my biggest complaint about the Hobbit movies. They look just like the movies we loved not too long ago, but the dip in quality is so severe that you kind of wonder if you really should have liked The Lord of the Rings in the first place. So, yeah, it makes you question whether the original trilogy was even actually good or if it was garbage. But no, it wasn't garbage, and yes, it's just as strong as you remember it. It's just these Hobbit movies, with their turgid pacing and overlong battle sequences, suck the big one. On the other hand, the Star Wars prequels look so different and so terrible, that there's no mistaking them for the cinematic abortions that they truly are. So fans of the original trilogy can point to the screen and say, "See this? THIS is good? This over here, bad. Original trilogy, good. New trilogy, bad." It's not so clear cut with these abysmal Hobbit movies since they look so much like what came before them.

(Image taken from: starwars.wikia.com)

2. The character arc, believe it or not, is actually better in the Star Wars prequels than it is in The Hobbit trilogy.

Okay, I know, I know, George Lucas meddling with the original trilogy and sticking in corny additions, like the picture above, are inexcusable. That in itself may make the Star Wars prequels worse than The Hobbit movies. But I offer you this--At least the Star Wars prequels follow one character's story arc in Hayden Christensen's Anaken Skywalker. I mean, it might be clumsily put together, and the transition from kid to Hayden Christensen from Episode I to II is beyond jarring, but even so, his story evolves and by the end of it, he becomes Darth Vader. The story makes sense. But these Hobbit movies, oh, man. Where do I begin? For a movie actually called The Hobbit, he sure plays a very tiny role in the story. Another huge gripe I've had with these bloated, CG monstrosities is that the title character, Bilbo Baggins, feels like a background character. Instead of us truly going on an adventure with him, you know, there and back again, we're instead thrown a whole bunch of other stories--side quests, if you will--that detract from the main story. If it isn't the dwarves, it's the dragon. If it isn't the dragon, it's the man who's going to slay the dragon. If it's not him, it's the elf/dwarf relationship. If it's not that, it's the Legolas/elf who loves the dwarf relationship. In the end, the story of Bilbo Baggins gets lost and you're wondering what the hell happened amidst all those extremely long battle sequences. At least Revenge of the Sith has a semi-satisfying conclusion. "Nooooooo," and all.



3. You can feel that George Lucas actually tried to make a good trilogy. Peter Jackson was just in it for the money.

(Image taken from: www.imdb.com)

And finally, the biggest insult is the fact that you can tell by every overlong CG fight scene, or segment where Legolas is talking, that Peter Jackson was just in it for the money. The movie, initially, was supposed to be split into two, which, I'm sorry, is pretty ridiculous given the source material. But after it was turned into three pictures, you could tell that a majority of each film's run-time was just padding, filler. Peter Jackson was bowing to the pressure of New Line cinema and making his project a bloated mess. And while the Star Wars prequels, especially Attack of the Clones, feel obscenely long, at least you can tell by every corny joke and lightsaber battle, that George Lucas poured his heart into that garbage. It may have been terrible, but the heart was still there. Even a heart in the right place is better than a heart clogged with dollar signs.

But what do you think? Do you think I'm just talking out my ass and that my arguments are invalid? Leave comments below. I'd love to hear what you think.

Sad But True: Star Wars Won't Seem Like Star Wars Without Lucas' Deep Involvement

(Image taken from: georgelucasneck.tumblr.com)

Fact: George Lucas pretty much tarnished his entire legacy with the "always intended" prequels to his mega-hit Star Wars with Episodes I-III.

Another fact: Jar Jar Binks shall always be the biggest stain on Lucas' career, besides the ketchup stain on his flannel shirt.

All that considered, with Disney recently acquiring Lucasfilm for a staggering 4 ba-ba-ba-ba billion (That's ba-billion with a ba) dollars, something just doesn't feel right. Especially since Disney has announced that they're going ahead with making another Star Wars trilogy, this one taking place after Episodes IV-VI.


Now, from what I've gathered, this new trilogy is supposed to be a bit darker than the "It hurts my eyes" CG disasters that were Episodes I-III. This new trilogy is also supposed to be based on a treatment that Lucas wrote that may or may not feature Luke Skywalker in his 30's and 40's. Even so, a new Star Wars trilogy, even if it would suck horribly in his hands, just doesn't seem right not being under the all-seeing eye of George Lucas. God is to mankind as George Lucas is to Star Wars. And while that might seem sacrilegious (Or is it sacrilicious?) to make such a comparison, I think it's apropos when thinking about what a landmark film Star Wars was to cinema. Lucas is pretty much the God of Hollywood. What other director, even with so many mistakes, holds as much clout as he does? Nobody, that's who! That's why he's Hollywood's God.

So, for Lucas to retire off to Tatooine or Florida or wherever else he plans to retire and not have direct contact with this next trilogy, well, it just seems so wrong. I think I'd rather have Lucas make another bad trilogy than for somebody else to take the wheel, even if it's as good as Episodes V and VI. I mention these two SW's because they were arguably the best of all of the films, and also the only two that Lucas didn't direct. That said, Lucas still has to be directly involved! It wouldn't be Star Wars without him. It just wouldn't!

But maybe I'm just a Lucas loyalist, even though I hated Episodes I-III beyond measure. I think I just like him as a person. He IS donating his $4 billion to education, after all. I kind of don't want to see him disappear into the pasture. What are your thoughts, though? Is the world of Star Wars better without him in it? Leave comments below.

Oh, and just as a reminder...