Peter Mayhew (1944-2019)

Peter Mayhew (1944-2019) brought Chewbacca to life in George Lucas' Star Wars (1977). As a kid he was one of the best things about the original trilogy (The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi) and of course there were many to love about them.



The actor put so much life into that hairy wookie and said so much with a simple growl. He was the epitome of cool and goofy and fun and the antithesis of digitally rendered characters like Jar Jar Binks that would come later. No matter how many times they tell me Jar Jar Binks is wonderful or that George Lucas tells us its his favorite character, well, all I can say is, something is wrong.



Chewbacca, as portrayed by Peter Mayhew, was the embodiment of all of our child like innocence and wonder in those original three films. He was our imagination covered in fur walking through worlds of spectacle with a cool weapon to boot.



I recall role playing Star Wars in backyard events and I always picked Chewbacca (there I am with my Chewbacca shirt, my brother and my dog, Tink the blink) and gave it my heartiest growl among the neighborhood friends. I even hand built a cheesy wood made cross bow. Good times!



The English actor even played the Minoton in another favorite childhood film Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger (1977). I saw both of these 1977 films in cinemas. He portrayed Chewbacca in the prequel Revenge Of The Sith (2005), before later sharing the role and consulting for the new Disney era films. He even made a fun appearance on Kevin Smith's Comic Book Men.



It's always sad to see one of our beloved childhood character actors leave us. It's like a piece of us dying. And we're getting older too. All I can say is well done Peter. The character won't be quite the same without you.

I hope wherever you are your personality inspires others upstairs to say "laugh it up fuzzball."

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

A long time ago in a decade far, far away...

 

The crushed helmet speaks volumes to me.

I'm resigned to the fact I'll never relive that moment or those moments or that experience in 1977 when the words first appeared against a canvas of black and scrawled across the screen--- STAR WARS.



Likely since the original trilogy, reconnecting with Star Wars has been something akin to rekindling a love or romance you once had but no matter what you do or how hard you try the thrill is gone. At a very minimum it has changed significantly. It's simply not the same with her anymore. So, yes, it would seem those days are over.

Who could forget when the words "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." appeared and Star Wars burst forth onto the screen amidst the scoring magic and propelling power of John Williams. People cheered. They clapped. Maybe it was upon repeat viewings of the original and the arrival of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, but the anticipation and excitement was palatable and feverish. I'm sure it's still happening out there somewhere. I was in a packed theatre and never felt that. Apparently no one else did either. We have such strong recollections of that opening it continues to carry over with each successive film as one of the many trademarks of the series.



When the George Lucas prequels came the effect was lessened, the humanity wooden and insignificant amidst a sea of technology and lengthy political soliloquies and with the arrival of J.J. Abrams it has become something of a formula enhanced with the Abrams style.

One beautiful thing about the Star Wars theatre experience though is its cross-generational appeal. That's a rare and special thing to be sure. I had two old women in front of me. And they weren't with annoying or sweet little grandchildren. They were alone together. That's just awesome to see.



Oh, but the whipper snappers were there too. A group of three children headed our way. You couldn't help but notice. The father wore his Star Wars shirt. One of the boys had several layers of Star Wars clothing on. (I saw them in the ticket line earlier and had a sneaking suspicion they were seeing Star Wars.) They were extremely energetic youngsters. They came ever close to sitting directly behind me and my son. As they walked passed the empty row directly behind us, I looked to the cinema ceiling and thanked the good Lord for small favors as they sank somewhere into the middle of the crowd far, far away. Small favors indeed. The force was with me.

It's only fair to submit in full disclosure I am an original trilogy babe. I was raised and reared on the best when it comes to science fiction adventure.



This writer is here simply to offer his reflections on the experience of seeing Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) yet again. In many respects, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) reworks the original and sprinkles in touches throughout the film that echo the Endor forest of Star Wars Episode VI: The Return Of The Jedi (1983) and even elements or component scenes from Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980). The new film is kind of an all-for-one deal with planets and locations all over the map with a kind incongruous aesthetic that reminded me of coloring as a child.

In no way do I mean to be overly critical because Star Wars offers a great deal of joy to a great many people. Certainly that's a great thing and regardless of what I have to offer on the subject here this franchise is going nowhere. But today, for me, seeing Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens felt a bit like going through the motions.



After seeing the trailer for Captain America: Civil War (2016) my son leaned over and noted "I felt like I just saw the film." Amen. Isn't that the truth? I couldn't agree more and even Star Wars didn't offer a great many surprises after all that I had seen leading up to the film. Trailers are a fun business but they are far too revealing today.  It's a shame, but those trailers tend to truly reveal the spectacle and surprise long before actually experiencing a film in its entirety. Some tend to take something away from the experience. My beef with trailers is another matter.



J. J. Abrams is a skilled director and generates some technical marvels when it comes to visual effects, but I always have my concerns going in. The man can reimagine and reboot a property on that level with the best of them. Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) offered old ideas and classic characters from old films and the original series of Star Trek with real vigor and energy. He does so here with Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Along with this latest endeavor, his films share a good chemistry, banter and humor throughout a given adventure, but they often feel a bit comic booky, soulless or lacking in quiet beauty and grace, the things that spoke to me in Star Trek: The Original Series (1966-1969) or in the original Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (though I prefer simply Star Wars). These films are nice diversions, but I simply don't put them in the same arena with the originals. I don't even own these pictures.



The characters that filled George Lucas' universe, before he discovered digital effects technology and went bat shit crazy forgetting what mattered, were filled with imagination and stories. It was the actors and the characters they played that mattered most. They were real, tangible, credible people. In other words, they felt human and you felt their humanity. Today, amidst all of the sound and fury characters play like cartoon characters lacking the kind of heart and soul that made a passable actor like Mark Hamill work to great effect as Luke Skywalker. Perhaps we were just fortunate recipients of timing for that first film on so many levels.



Skywalker was restless, frustrated, yearning to learn, discover and do something great and special. Alec Guinness' wise old Obi Wan Kenobi was a mysterious figure, but a master teaching his repressed apprentice in the ways of the force. In the new film, we see a throwaway parts like the one embodied by Max Von Sydow. Here is one of the true acting greats relegated to a bit part simply to fill the needs and components of a franchise. Here was the star of Pelle The Conqueror (1987) doing what? Okay, perhaps it is the desire of an actor simply to be part of something as big as Star Wars even if the film doesn't touch a film he starred in like The Exorcist (1973). Imagine if Sydow were given a role comparable to the one afforded Guinness. None really exist here.



Do you recall the feeling of Luke Skywalker looking out into the setting suns of Tatooine or the lilting melodies of John Williams' score to accompany the complete humanity of the original Star Wars in contemplative compositions or themes like The Hologram/Binary Sunset or Tales Of A Jedi Knight/Learning About The Force. Can you imagine you have to learn about the force? If ever a Star Wars film deserved recognition for greatness it had to the original, because these money makers simply do not deserve such Academy acclaim.

By the way, the cast in the latest edition of the film series is uniformly excellent. Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Adam Driver are all very good. I had my quibbles but they were merely mine. I found the character name of Rey a bit annoying. I preferred Driver in a mask. Darth Vader never showed his face until the third film in a trilogy. Why does everyone need to take off their mask and show their face? This dark villain felt less intimidating with the mask removed and Driver's boyish face reminded me of Josh Groban. Would he break into song at any moment?



I enjoyed the gender role reversal in this rework of Star Wars with Ridley in the Luke Skywalker role. Many moments suggest a passing of the torch with Daisy (a name I would have preferred over Rey) taking her place by Chewbacca's side in the beloved and conveniently available Millennium Falcon. But much of this film and these moments seems overly familiar by now. It's all a bit tired really. Jakku reminds us of Tatooine and we've been to the desert many times as much as it warms our heart with a dry heat. These scenes, purposefully, remind us of the original or Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) just as the screen crawl takes us back there. But none of Star Wars: The Force Awakens feels particularly original or fresh. It sticks relatively close to the planets, ships and designs of the originals and rarely strays into new ideas. BB-8 replaces R2-D2. Supreme Leader Snoke replaces The Emperor. We get a cantina scene. We get the death star again. We get a truly uninspired death star trench sequence. We get a few new CGI monsters to create new figure molds for the masses. I hate CGI and some are excellent while others ridiculously defy gravity.



Still, what doesn't work is Supreme Leader Snoke. What were they thinking? He looked like a CGI reject from the Harry Potter or The Hobbit films. I hate that kind of crap. A film slated to make millions (billions) could have spent a little time on practical effects and prosthetic work here for the new Supreme Leader. Right? Come on. For all the knocks it receives SyFy channel recently aired the mini-series Childhood's End (2015). Actor Charles Dance was bedecked as an Overlord in one of the best Satanic prosthetic, make-up jobs since Ridley Scott's Legend (or thereabouts) and this is the best Snoke we get for Star Wars? I mean SyFy delivered a better villain. SyFy people! It boggles the mind. I'm thrilled Andy Serkis has a job, but I'd rather see true make-up application here for the actor rather than see him rigged up like a Christmas tree for motion capture. Could we have spared no expense on this? What a crime. You my friend are no Emperor. We get a terrific scene where Kylo Ren can stop a laser and then we get left over CGI for Snoke. Awful.



Another issue, and my son makes a good point, but he wondered how two youngsters like Rey and even a former Stormtrooper could be so well versed in the art of the lightsaber so quickly battling Kylo Ren no less. Doesn't it require a bit of training? They may have missed that part in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope to speed up the action. It was a good bit of dumb luck to stumble upon Luke's old lightsaber though, like the Falcon.

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens offers a good exercise in action adventure for die hard fans of the Star Wars universe. The little homages and tributes to the past are a delight like the Millennium Falcon Stop motion chess table animation and so on, but again nothing new. The film is merely passable entertainment for those that require or demand a bit more substance and originality from their films or franchises. Think Prometheus (2012). Newcomers, with absolutely no prior exposure, may well be blown away because it is a technical marvel as sci-fi adventure goes. Finding those people is a bit like finding a juror for the O.J. Simpson trial, but they are out there and I spoke with one and he was impressed.



But the latest Star Wars creation feels a bit like Abrams' Star Trek in the form of Star Wars. He knows how to work a formula. It's all a bit paint by numbers for adults. It's as if today's sci-fi director is afraid to slow down the Hollywood machinery on a popular franchise for fear of invoking boredom, but a quality script with strong writing doesn't need the galactic empire whizzing over head at every turn. I'll take a Monsters (2010), District 9 (2009) or Ex-Machina (2015) any day of the week.

And then the film just sort of ends with not a word from Luke. I'd take that paycheck.



On the up side, it was a delight to see the original cast generally speaking. I was thrilled C-3P0 was underutilized, R2-D2 was sidelined and we got the adorable BB-8 droid in its place with no hide nor hair of the awful memories of the prequels embodied by the hideous Jar Jar Binks.

It's a solid piece of entertainment overall but one I could easily have gone without at this point. I enjoyed the paint by numbers coloring books as a kid. I'm a bit beyond those now too.

As I mentioned earlier, an alternative case in point, Oscar Isaac, plays a resistance pilot, but his role is a mere cardboard cut out. A film in which he recently starred, Ex Machina (2015), is superior and an infinitely more rewarding, thoughtful and satisfying picture. (It may be comparing an apple to a rolling orange). Now that's a fine piece of science fiction written and directed by Alex Garland. It reminded me of the kind of original work once written and directed by another once promising director in 1977.



Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is a good tale, certainly not juvenile in its approach thankfully, that traverses the ideas of good versus evil even if it retreads familiar territory. One could certainly say it tells a cyclical story. The more things change the more they stay the same. Evil is found in unexpected places while the force triumphs in equally dark realms. Like life, there is no formula for how these things play out and the new film delivers that message, but sadly and ironically, with a touch too much formula. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is more like Star Wars Episode VII: The Formula Awakens, but you could do much worse and fans have likely received something of a Christmas gift with its release as it checks off a lot of boxes on the wish list.

My lack of an endorsement is intended not to take anything away from all of the efforts that are on that screen which are indeed immense. The fact this is a financial juggernaut is certainly not surprising. Star Wars is a corporate giant---a machine unleashed. It's the Death Star. It could fund wars and countries. It's massive and cannot be stopped. What would be surprising is if it didn't make money. What would be surprising is if someone took a risk with the Star Wars universe in writing a story more intimate and far less commercially predictable for a new entry.



At this point I suppose you could say I'm not a Star Wars fan and I've moved on to more unexpected, more challenging sci-fi pastures. But whether you like this film or not, I certainly count myself among one of the progenitors who helped build and unleash this monstrosity. Like you, I'm also one of the hapless rabble who keep feeding this thing. We have a choice to not be part of the problem. When it comes to Star Wars I'm undeniably part of the problem. We've let this thing out of the cage and we cannot corral it back up.

When the next film arrives, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016), will I see it? Or will I be brave and bold enough to make a stand, take one of my fallen tree branches as if I was ten and exclaim YOU-SHALL-NOT-PASS! Aw shucks I'll probably see the darn thing, but I don't plan to. I'm just really not a required part of the commercial equation for this thing.

But is this sensation sensational stuff? Is it the best film ever? Does it deserve all of the money it makes? No, no and well, making money is good for everybody. Look, it's an entirely faithful, reverent exercise in honoring the Star Wars universe, but as an original entertainment---it was alright.

Science Fiction Non-Fiction: George Lucas Vs. Congress

In 1988, George Lucas sat before Congress to protect the original composition of films.  At the time, some black and white films were being considered for colorization.  This led to the preservation of historical film and the establishment of the National Film Registry.

My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I’ve come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as “when life begins” or “when it should be appropriately terminated,” but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.

I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.

The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That’s an outrage! It’s not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of “The Maltese Falcon?” Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art–as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.



Lucas wanted to protect the rights of the filmmaker and though he has tinkered with his own films often since this fateful day on March 3, 1988, Lucas is still tinkering with his own films. It smacks of hypocrisy as if George Lucas fighting corporations was somehow arguing against himself. One can see the splitting of hairs here.

Will the real George Lucas please step forward? If only there was a George Lucas clone to protect him from himself.  It sounds like a great time travel tale. Now about those Star Wars negatives.

The credit to this information goes to Film: Blogging The Real World and Brandon Schaefer from August 2011. I just found it interesting and wanted to look into it a little further.  I thought you might enjoy the overall transcript as well.

The People Vs. George Lucas

If you're a frequent visitor here at Musings Of A Sci-Fi Fanatic you may have noticed there is very little coverage of Star Wars to speak of. In no way do I mean to speak blasphemy going forward nor discount the cultural impact of said franchise on science fiction adventure. It's certainly a bit sacrilegious to speak negatively of Star Wars I know.

Funny enough, it was a recent viewing of The People Vs. George Lucas (2010) on Netflix that essentially sparked this post. I'm not a Netflix fan, but the access is convenient from time to time especially when I don't desire to purchase the product. The documentary is exceptional and recommended for fans of Star Wars and the explosive fan phenomenon that would follow.

I'm essentially a huge fan of the original Star Wars trilogy (1977, 1980, 1983), and like most, the first and second films especially. For a time, I joined the Star Wars craze. I bought the original figures and even some of the new figures during the prequel releases.  And some still hang lovingly in their collectible boxes collecting dust. But to be honest, as the years have passed, I've lost enthusiasm for the Star Wars universe, while my enthusiasm for Star Trek and others has increased exponentially. There just seems to be more meat on the bones of television fare than those brief mythological escapes.  And beyond that, perhaps that universe simply isn't as satisfying as it once seemed as a kid.



In the documentary, directed by Alexandre O. Philippe several fans discuss their love/hate affair for Lucas and it is a fascinating look into fandom. I can completely relate to it. I empathize on a certain level too. The prequels, while still good, are missing substantial heart and depth of character for my tastes. They really felt quite hollow and never really resonated the least bit convincingly particularly when compared to Star Wars: A New Hope. Hayden Christensen was partially to blame as a poor casting choice. The politically heavy scripts were also leaden along with their emphasis on special effects.  And maybe it's me. I'm just not a kid anymore and perhaps I need a little more convincing at this point. But, I like to think, as a kid, I had pretty good taste.  As I see it, everything from the 1970s and 1960s was just perfect. Right.



One of the crucial components discussed for this documentary was the tinkering and altering of the original films by George Lucas infamously known as the Special Editions.  In effect, they were /are a bridge to his new approach to filmmaking that was presented in all its visual effects splendor for those prequel films. Again, they lacked all of the grit, heart and substantive realism of the world created in those original pictures. Those worlds were fantastically convincing. Every nook and cranny of Tatooine felt remarkable from the skeletons to the Sandcrawler droid sale to farming and dinner with Beru and Owen to the cantina of scoundrels.



The People, as it were, have some very valid points regarding Lucas and his endless tinkering. It's maddening to them. This documentary had a funny effect on me because the more I watched the more infuriating it became and the more angry I became. And I'm a casual fan of the series. I don't nearly go to the lengths many of these fans and fan film makers do, but I completely and utterly agree with them concerning the original, untainted original films as national treasures to be protected.  Lucas doesn't seem to see it quite the same way and yet he once sat before Congress to argue for the protection of classic black and white films. He pleaded that colorization of these films was tantamount to a bastardization of the original prints and their respective visions. It doesn't jive. So how does Lucas get away with changing his own films in fairly significant ways? Let's face it, there are changes that go far beyond the pale of the original character intentions of those original films. Let's look at just three examples of those changes.

First, the insertion of Jabba The Hut into Star Wars IV: A New Hope. Han Solo now steps on Jabba's tale and Jabba The Hutt, unlike his very real appearance in Return Of The Jedi, looks about as terrifying as a puppy dog. The scene is effectively ruined or at least it takes us out of the moment. People who had problems with it have every right to be horrified.

Second, in Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back, Luke Skywalker falls following the "I am you father" scene. The scene becomes positively hair-raising and not in a good way. To see our battered, brave hero fall and now literally scream like a girl is positively disturbing. And you and I know disturbances in the force are not good. What the hell was Lucas thinking?



Finally, back to Star Wars IV: A New Hope, the crème de la crème of modifications. Han Solo was a scoundrel we always rooted for. He shot Greedo cold. He knew it wasn't going to end well with Greedo and ended him before Greedo shot him.  Now, Han Solo shoots second! Wait. What!? In the Cantina on Tattoine, Greedo shoots first misfiring from two feet away. Han Solo fires back, fortunate to have survived a bad shot from a clearly second-rate, incapable and less-than-worthy bounty hunter, killing Greedo. How lucky. How ridiculous. What happened to that illegal-smuggling, nasty, no-good, but lovable scoundrel of an opportunist? Folks, Han Solo shot first. He always did. He always will. To see that change occur in Star Wars alters an impression of a major character that is absolutely incongruous with his true, established nature. What an abomination. It's a major modification and it's easy to see why the People have a gripe.



And while we're on the subject, look no further than Steven Spielberg's classic E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982), another film that underwent the knife. Rather than government agents in pursuit with guns, now we get government agents pursuing with ... flashlights. The guns are removed and flashlights implemented through editing. We handled the guns fine as children and we can handle the guns today. They were part of the manhunt and it made perfect sense. But at least Spielberg has also retained the original film in tact and made it available. Spielberg never buried it like it was an imperfect abomination.



Lucas is both a capitalist and a committed liberal. Sadly those politics continue to be foisted upon us by a Hollywood that acts like an endless slush fund. It continues to alter our perception of what we should see or how we should see things. In general, there is a constant movement to change history too. Don't think for a minute those efforts aren't well-funded either. Let's erase the twin towers because we don't want to remind people of what happened. Have our sensibilities become so fragile and delicate America can't handle Han Solo shooting first or E.T. pursued by men with weapons? The barometer on our perceptions of what is acceptable and what isn't goes beyond good sense, unless of course the use of an argument, despite hypocrisy, can line the wallets of studios and its stars who profess one political argument yet sell another. Quite frankly it's maddening.

The original films will forever hold a special place for me, but I don't often seek them out. When I do catch them I stop and I love seeing them, but for whatever reason I have moved on significantly from the wonder and imagination of those original Lucas films. Of course, I have them memorized.



I suppose it has to do with change and some sort of personal growth. It's not that I don't appreciate films filled with imagination. I loved Pacific Rim (2013) as you know and it's not a film that's going to change the world. But it does take a bit to impress me today.

Take the ever expanding promise of the Disney-owned universe and the potential for a J.J. Abrams Star Wars film and/or a Star Wars television series. I'm rather indifferent or apathetic about the whole thing.  I'm literally on the side lines with little to no interest. I'm okay with it. I'm happy for those that are really excited but I've just moved on. I mean, I see headlines constantly updating us on these stories on science fiction sites and the enthusiasm fans have for it and I'm generally completely disinterested. I probably shouldn't be, but I'm just not bothered.

Additionally, the comic book movie has taken a similar detour for me.  I have even less interest in superhero movies today. Once upon a time I couldn't wait for a new superhero film, but the loud, crashing thud of The Avengers (2012) has lessened my enthusiasm for them even further. I see the excitement for Spider-Man 2 I'm just not sold on anything that special about it. They keep priming us for The Avengers 2. Yet, it's passable entertainment at best. So even the superhero universe has lost a luster. Guardians Of The Galaxy (2014) is a sci-fi-styled exception. I'm interested in it for originality.





I know you're thinking, 'Oh you poor sod, you've lost the eyes of a child.'  And that's not it at all. I definitely felt that child-like summer enthusiasm for Pacific Rim and I know it will happen again. I'm open to it. But the journey of ideas in science fiction brought to life in pictures like Pacific Rim or Prometheus (2012) are few and far between for me at this point.  Those films thrilled and terrified and touched me in a cerebral or emotional way and at this point it take something to impress me.  Television, whether the classics like Star Trek: The Next Generation or a new series like Game Of Thrones, has an even greater impact on the experience for me based on sheer scope, breadth and depth of material.

But listen, tastes change and times change and thus we are dynamic in this way in our love for pop culture.  I have little doubt my tastes will remain static. Change is a constant with them. And, ultimately, to each his own. Perhaps I've fallen to the dark side.

Ironically, this fan-based documentary film was so much more fascinating to me than the possibility of more Star Wars itself. It made me realize that I had written or expounded or reflected very little on the Star Wars mythology here on this site. What was also notable to me was that my relationship with all things George Lucas has all but evaporated. It has long been replaced by so many others and yet many of those series were certainly influenced by Star Wars.



The People Vs. George Lucas is thorough in its examination of Lucas as indie filmmaker turned capitalist. It examines in fascinating details fan reaction to the dreadful creation of Jar Jar Binks, the deflating reaction to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) and most importantly the conundrum that is the love/hate relationship to the almost schizophrenic, divisive or dichotomous creative approach that is George Lucas.

But, let's be clear, the love part of that love/hate relationship for Star Wars and George Lucas runs deep and far outweighs the latter.  I am forever grateful to Lucas and Star Wars for largely reinforcing this inspired love of science fiction that began with Star Trek, Lost In Space, Thunderbirds and Space:1999. Star Wars took it all to another level. In this, this writer, will forever respect the accomplishments of George Lucas even if Star Wars is quite the antithesis to most of my more thoughtful science fiction tastes today. And who knows, maybe one day I will return to the Star Wars universe here, but for now that interest is in a galaxy, far, far away.



Minor footnote: A neighbor's son was a little under the weather. I brought him one of those Star Wars figures I seem to have much less regard for today in the hopes of lifting his spirit. It did. He lit up. He just sat there looking at the figure. He and his Dad showed me their massive Star Wars collection and the boy even likes Jar Jar Binks. You can't help but forgive that affection from the eyes of a child.

You see, this is where my affection for that series lived. It was indeed in the heart of that little kid. I loved Star Wars to no end once upon a time. Here I was standing before a boy, thirty-seven years Star Wars was launched on an unsuspecting world.  It was clear, like Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, that Star Wars was alive and well in the hearts of young people today and it wasn't going away. Regardless of all the money behind it and the game of show business aside, it's nice to forget about all that and remember why something like this continues to be special. Just seeing the joy in that boy's face. Star Wars is certainly alive and well.

I'm Your Father

Actually, it's "I am your father," because using the contraction for "I am" simply doesn't have the same impact. If Darth Vader ever said "I'm your father" to Luke in The Empire Strikes Back, I suspect the moment might not have been as profound. When James Earl Jones speaks and draws out those words it's potent. I imagine a good deal of thought went into that singular moment. Actor David Prowse had no idea what the dialogue would be for that definitive moment until much later.

Still, that image is pretty clever.

Star Wars Vs Taxi Driver

Star Wars arrives on Blu-Ray today. Once again, George Lucas has tinkered and modified scenes from the classics. I believe this particular scene was left on the cutting room floor.

Star Wars VS. Star Trek

Star Wars will be arriving on Blu-Ray in September. I'm about to say something fairly sacrilegious especially from a self-professed Sci-Fi Fanatic headlining a site called Musings Of A Sci-Fi Fanatic, but here goes - I don't really much care. 'Sacre bleu! Ye speaketh with forked sith tongue!'

I know. I feel just terrible saying such a thing, because I think Star Wars: The Original Trilogy is just perfect. It's wonderful. As much as I find Star Trek and its respective offerings far more compelling to my adult mind, Star Wars is certainly a classic science fiction fantasy adventure that appeals to my inner child-like wonder. I understand the two are different and the debate is long. It's apples and oranges - film versus television, but I've felt this way towards Star Wars for awhile now.

Ultimately, my lack of interest is entirely thanks to the corporate machine that is George Lucas and the endless slough of releases that attempt to pry open my wallet. If there was ever a franchise milked for its every dollar it would have to be Star Wars. Granted, fans of the mythology are surely rewarded by the endless line of video games and various television incarnations, some very good, but apart from those first three films I've essentially grown weary of the series and mildly disinterested. Paramount is certainly no stranger to the process of making money either. I have no delusions to the contrary.

I'm thrilled to see Star Wars arriving on Blu-Ray. Okay, well, not really, but someday I'll purchase it. I'm much more interested in watching Star Trek: The Original Series than I am Star Wars. For me, Star Trek offers endlessly fascinating and thoughtful ideas years after its arrival. The mythologies and their respective storytelling approaches are entirely different I know.

Heck, Stargate Atlantis: The Complete Series arrives on Blu-Ray this month and to underscore the point all of my meager slush funding shall be redirected to that box set before it goes to Star Wars. I know this must say something about me. It certainly says Star Trek and Stargate before Star Wars for this fanatic. It also says I like titles with the word Star in it if you really want to get technical.

There's certainly room for all. Where do you stand? Is the conversation fair or pointless? May the force be with you or live long and prosper... indeed.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith: Best & Worst Moment

As someone eternally loyal to the original Star Wars trilogy it's hard for me to be a great defender of the George Lucas prequel trilogy, which, of course, was a technical achievement more than a success of character or acting.

I can point to moments along the way that I enjoyed in the prequel films. Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace was truly awful and I really don't have much to say about that film. I know many of the olders out there feel the same way. Anakin was atrocious. Jar Jar Binks worse than atrocious and a terrible CGI creation in the name of George Lucas merchandising. I'd have to say Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor are the best things about the Episode 1 prequel. On the whole it's a pretty vacuous film about "Ani" and the disjointed, uneven storytelling cannot be saved by two seasoned actors. Seriously, even Naboo is really boring. The Boy Wonder doesn't quite appreciate these finer details.
*

Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones was a huge improvement, but that didn't take a lot. You could have sneezed into a tissue and held it open to the audience and it would have been better. Gross I know. I loved the Jango/ Obi Wan smackdown and the Slave I asteroid chase, but even then it felt different than the original trilogy films. Could it have been a case of too much Slave I? Was it too clean and perfect? The original Boba Fett vessel was like a harbinger of evil to come. I suppose there's never enough Slave I, but it still wasn't the original trilogy. Did Boba give it a paint job along the way? I never did get that, but I haven't paid close attention to the mythology since the original trilogy. I do love the Clone Wars precursor battle at the end in the arena with all of the Republic Gunships and the massive jedi and clone force. Battle don't get much better. Yoda's lightsaber duel with Count Dooku was good. Admittedly, I was never a huge fan of Christopher Lee and the whole Dooku character. Pasting the old timer's face on a younger man's body is hard to buy. I needed someone a tad younger. I wasn't a fan of Darth Maul either. It was like George Lucas was trying way too hard. Dooku wasn't much better going to the opposite, more ordinary extreme. Of course, Episode II had all of those love story interruptions ...Ugh! I know Lucas was trying to tell his love story portion of Star Wars, but the acting was anemic or wooden or however you want to categorize it. Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen had little chemistry. It was hard to watch. It was especially hard to watch them frolic in the fields on those large round alien creatures. It was silly. It was just plain atrocious. Then it was back to the Jango fight. It was such a jarring, strange juxtaposition throughout the film and I'm not opposed to love stories [District 9 anyone?].

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith was good. I think I like it best as a whole. We're almost at the point with this film where George Lucas is close to making a decent Star Wars movie, but that won't happen entirely until Episode IV. You'll have to go back in time for that one. I suppose I'm not demonstrating a great deal of mercy here. I like the Wookie battle on Kashyyyk and some of the heavy equipment and clone gear in that sequence. The coloring looks terrific and it was by far the most interesting location of the three films- odd that it looks closest to Earth. But like everything else in this film it's far too brief. We hardly get to see any of the cool stuff for more than a few seconds. Lucas tried to cram way too much into his epic tale at the expense of the audience. Older fans wanted to sit back and absorb some of these places and take in the details, but just don't blink. It's understandable the modern day video gamers didn't see the problems as much as the raised and reared Atari folk.
*

This leads me to the original purpose for this post. I love the various jedi and the races who populate the order, but they are struck down with Order 66 like a group of rag dolls and it was just so mishandled in my opinion it took alot of jedi credibility away for me from the film. Many of them are blindsided and killed from behind and that was just unbelievable, but potentially debateable for me. The biggest crime is committed when the four jedi confront Chancellor Palpatine and they get their asses handed to them in seconds. It was a travesty of justice in more ways than one felt like a betrayal to the Star Wars mythology. No excuse in the world could ever prepare you for the jedi being struck down like four random, nameless, rabble of battle droid. By the way, are the battle droids good for anything? They don't seem to be of any value with the exception of Jedi debris removal and target practice. George Lucas really messed up by attempting to compress his story. It was far too convenient to just wipe the floor with the jedi to move his story forward. No way in a million years would Kit Fisto, Saesee Tiin, Eeth Koth and Mace Windu allow that Sith lord to beat them. In fact, three of the aforementioned jedi are killed in exactly 8 seconds flat [I timed it with a watch]. From the moment Palapatine goes nuclear the deal is done in 8 seconds. HUH?! It wouldn't happen. Four against one. I'm not buying it. Lucas screwed the pooch on this one.


*

What I did love about the third and final prequel film was one of the most genuinely touching, human moments in the entire trilogy for me. I was moved by Ewan McGregor in this scene and when it happened I realized what I had missed most about Star Wars, character and investment in those characters. This for me was the greatest moment of the third installment and possibly the prequel trilogy. Granted without the other two films would it have had the same impact?




*

Man, that scene choked me up. I'm a softy. All in all the bloated Star Wars prequel films were tedious and just weighted down by a lot of technical talk and political mumbo jumbo. The prequel films were simply disappointing on so many levels. The original Star Wars trilogy is the must see trilogy when Anakin [Darth Vader] and Obi-Wan meet again. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope would see the Obi-Wan/ Darth Vader duel to the death or as The Boy Wonder put it to me, "it's like old man fighting." Ouch! He is harsh. That's okay. I can handle it. And he does love the originals actually, despite the nursing home battle.

Jar Jar Binks: Still Alive, Still Lucky, Still Dumb As An Endor Tree Stump

Dumb and Dumber. Actually, C-3PO isn't dumb, annoying maybe, but not dumb. Jar Jar he's dumb, but damn is he lucky.

I shouldn't have to apologize. Really. There are some things in this life we will never understand. One of those things is why on Earth did George Lucas create Jar Jar Binks for Star Wars? He's useless, worthless, annoying and a complete and utter liability to everyone around him. Alright he's not worthless, because he's one of the luckiest aliens to ever live. He somehow saves the day when everyone should be piled high upon a bloody heap of bodies. I was watching The Clone Wars on Cartoon Network, more or less in passing, while the boy wonder was engrossed.

Jar Jar Binks was in the spotlight for the entry. Didn't George Lucas get the message that nobody with a brain ever wanted to see that character ever again? Sure, I know he was relegated to a brief cameo for Star Wars: Attack Of The Clones after everyone complained about him in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Further, Lucas quickly chalked it up to the simple fact that he was simply not planned as part of the next level to his prequel trilogy. He was written out as planned not with no mind to fan pressure. Perhaps.

Jar Jar Binks nearly single-handedly destroyed the first Star Wars prequel film. It was awful in large part because of that character. I know this is well covered territory, but my inner rage for the character's existence was reawakened this night when he graced my television screen here at home.

*

UGH! Jar Jar is back like fingers on a chalk board. Misa this! Misa that! Or is it Meesa? Whatever. It's the stupidest creation to ever enter the science fiction pantheon and in some ways it was the beginning of the end for Star Wars. I still love the franchise despite Jar Jar and other missteps [nobody's perfect], but what the heck was Lucas thinking? I mean, wasn't C-3PO enough?
*

Alright, I think I'm through venting.

Wait. I'm not. Okay so clearly Jar Jar should have been killed long ago [in a galaxy far far away], but he wasn't. Clearly someone had further designs in store for the Gungan. Apparently the creators of The Clone Wars thought dusting him off for the kiddies at home would be a good idea. Why? Why do they continue to poison the Star Wars legacy with this kind of ridiculous character? Some of those kiddies watching at home are big kiddies and we can't stand Jar Jar. Okay so I'm not the target audience, but the young boy next to me wasn't loving him. He thought he was okay. He was being kind. I quelled my disdain for Jar Jar. I didn't want to jade his innocent love for the series so I didn't make a single comment. Quietly though I cursed that vile creature's existence.

*

Notice to the creators of The Clone Wars, please stick to the clones and jedi for action. R2 D2 and his sidekick for comedy relief are just fine. The battle droids with their incessant "roger, roger"s are pretty funny at times too, but meesa just can't stand Jar Jar. Bring on Commander Fox, Rex and Grievous even, but please be sure to send Jar Jar off on an ambassadorial mission deep in the heart of nowhere.

*

How far can this franchise fall? I don't know. The whole thing is certainly debatable. Part of me enjoys seeing the series for what it is and how it ties the generations together with a common joy even if it is watered down Star Wars-lite. Star Wars bonds us. It's like comfort food. I just don't find comfort in Jar Jar Binks.

*

The Clone Wars: B

[This Episode of Clone Wars with Jar Jar "Do you feel lucky punk?" Binks: D]

*

Damn, did I just spend thirty minutes of my life writing about Jar Jar? God help me!