Loser Skywalker vs. Darth Weinstein

In the case that you've been living under a rock for the past few weeks or if you're of the select few that hasn't been scouring the web 24/7 for all of the Star Wars-themed news you can find (we'll assume the former), you may be unaware of the current feud going on between a group of Couch Jedis and The Weinstein Company, which happens to be the group responsible for the release of the Star Wars nerd-themed love-letter Fanboys..

Well, let me quickly bring you up to speed. It seems that last summer a whole bunch of Star Wars devotees got their underoos all urine- soaked when they caught a rough cut of the film Fanboys at the Star Wars Celebrations in both London and Los Angeles. Let me tell you they loved it so much it got a standing ovation, which is a surefire sign that a movie is Oscar-worthy.

However, they got all upset when they found out recently that the term rough cut actually ended up meaning rough cut and the movie changed from a heart warming tale about a " group of Star Wars fans who travel to Skywalker Ranch to steal an early copy of Episode I: The Phantom Menace so their friend can see it before he dies of cancer," to a film about a bunch of die hard fans who go on a road trip to break in to Skywalker Ranch, just because they want to see the movie a few months early with no mention of the cancer plot. The Superfans have since vowed to boycott the film and anything bearing the Weinstein's name due to the plot change.

While I understand their dismay at hearing that the film they loved so dearly got changed from their original viewing, I have to take issue with the naivete of these Star Wars supernerds. My first issue is that I question whether or not these people are the least bit familiar with the Hollywood machine. Have they never heard of rewrites or re-shoots before? Why should something that they hold dear be immune to the Hollywood process? Maybe if they'd actually watched films like The Player or The Big Picture rather than re-watching The Ewok Adventure for the 800th time they'd have some semblance of understanding of how the film industry works.

My other issue is that these superfans are so adamant about just how awful the other version obviously is, without having actually seen it. Let's pretend for a second that the only thing more important than being the first in line for the first showing of any new superhero or sci-fi release to a superfan is the health of his/her friends. You mean to tell me the film plot is only valid if someone has a disease as the reason to drive the plot? The only reason a fan would go to Skywalker ranch is because he has Cancer and hence the new plot is utterly unbelievable because Star Wars fans are the most pure of heart people in the world? Right, next you're going to tell me Revenge Of The Nerds would've been a lot better if instead of going on a midnight panty raid to the Pi's house, Booger Presley gave a rousing speech about his battle with hemophilia in it's stead.

I know what you think Fanboys, you think this film is about you…but it's not about you. This is the furthest thing from a based on a true story biopic about your life, though you seem to think it's the closest you'll ever get, so now it's personal. The film is actually about a bunch of kids who try to get a copy of Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace before it comes out by going to the Skywalker Ranch…Did you do that? Most likely you didn't.

I think Star Wars fans are guilty of a little anger displacement. Instead of being mad at the Weinstein Company, maybe they should be angry at George Lucas for the three lousy prequels he made them waste their money on.

Pathetically, on the day this post goes up…outraged Star Wars fans will be protesting in theaters in both New York and LA against the changes made by "Darth Weinstein"…right as if there's nothing else important in the world going on to protest.

P.S. I also think naming all of your enemies Darth something is pretty lazy and uncreative...and I heartily protest it's usage.

This blog is published by The Film School & Acting School at the New York Film Academy. Visit our website to learn more about our exciting curriculum!

If you enjoyed this article please share it!

THIS HAD BETTER BE GOOD!

I was recently browsing the movie site CHUD, when I came across a post about a title change for the new McG helmed Terminator flick to be released in 2009. First off, it’s never a good sign for a movie when the director attached to the film is afraid to use his real name and is responsible for crapfests like Sugar Ray videos and Charlie’s Angels movies. As a second point of contention it’s an even worse sign when your sequel title states the obvious…it’s tentatively Terminator:The Return of The Terminator. Sigh… If they were going to draw us away from the obvious they could have just named it Terminator: 4: Aliens vs. Predators vs. Terminators. Now, I haven’t really been on board with the adventures of The Connor family since The Governator jumped in that vat of scalding metal at the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, but I did at least catch some of #3 when Robert Patrick’s animorphic Terminator was replaced with the most beautiful blonde girl they could find, so that they could get as much promotional material out of Maxim Magazine as possible. However, something about the news of a new Model-T Terminator really struck a nerve here. My mind began to dance amongst the recent onslaught of sequels as well as a certain unholy trinity of prequels

I was brought back to the Summer of 1999, waiting in line at the Union Square Cinemas to see Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. All I remember thinking prior to entering the movie theater was “this is going to be good”. With all of the news stories trumpeting the arrival of Young Anakin (Jake Scott) and the lovely Natalie Portman as Queen Amidala, not to mention the return of Yoda and Obi Wan, there was an overall feeling of optimism for the first of three prequels to the classic Star Wars Trilogy. I mean after all, this was STAR WARS, How can it not be awesome? However, when the film ended, I couldn’t help but feel like I’d had the wool pulled over my eyes. The movie was really just a subpar exercise in filling in unnecessary blanks.

Though it seemed that I should probably quit while I was ahead and not partake in 2002’s Attack of The Clones experiment, like the majority of film fans, I once again bit…hook, line, and sinker, harnessing that familiar optimism I had felt just three years prior. Needless to say after that horrendous two plus hour bore-fest, all that I had was waste time better spent biting my nails outdoors. After seeing that film I vowed that if I ever witnessed Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen having a conversation in public I would have to break it up for fear that it was just as boring as any of their interaction in the aforementioned film.

Completely sick of George Lucas’s attempts to fill in plot holes with digital pictures, I nonetheless was victimized again when with a heap of my friends, I went to see the final installment in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. We lined up at the Ziegfield as scores of Jedi-clad nerds awaited a marked cinematic improvement. Instead I’d argue we saw the same sad excuse for storytelling, but with the added bonus of hasty attempts to finish filling holes that had to be accounted for leading up to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, the most laughable of which was the naming of Luke and Leia and the creation of Darth Vader, held to the last minute.

The fact of the matter is, none of these three prequels needed to exist. If a movie does a good enough job with exposition in the first place, there should be no need for additional films alerting us how things went down before. There was a reason A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of The Jedi were chosen as the original three in the Star Wars series. They were the most compelling stories. Imagine if we felt it necessary to prequelize and sequelize every single film. Aren’t you even the slightest bit curious what happened to Shaquille O’Neal’s rapping genie character in Kazaam to get him into his Genie’s boombox or what happened after he helped make the little kid from a Bronx Tale’s life better? Probably not. No prequel or sequel needed.

Aside from the travesty that is the Star Wars prequels, a few other storied franchises have recently bowed or are set to bow their 4th installments. The aforementioned Terminator series is kind of immaterial, at least to this writer. I still really only value the premiere installment, because as a child, the element of the indiscriminant, murderous machine portrayed by Schwarzenegger versus his mere mortal counterparts was the more frightening scenario. T2 lost a lot of luster for me recently when I realized how laughable James Cameron’s preachy dialogue was and as well as the inevitability of The Connor Family coming out on top. However, if the 4th installment has one thing going for it, it’s that according to IMDB.com, Christian Bale is attached in the role of John Connor. Part of me has a hunch that in order for that to come to fruition they may need McG to give up the reigns, because Christian Bale doesn’t make many bad film choices and this one could be catastrophic.

It seems to be the more enjoyable of sequels have been more palatable due to one simple reason and that is they are sustainable on their own as films, with individual plots unique to their predecessors. Take the Indiana Jones soon-to-be quadrilogy (is that a word), for example. The only thing they seem to have in common, other than the occasional Nazi is Henry (Indiana) Jones Jr, perhaps one of the top 3 most likeable characters in film history. Sure Raiders of The Lost Ark and The Last Crusade feature Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies and the upcoming Kingdom of The Crystal Skulls has retread Karen Allen on board, but its not as if Indy is trying to get the Holy Grail back or Short Round for that matter…This looks to be a new adventure. The same goes for the Die Hard foursome…and even Rambo! Yes, I saw Rambo, and it felt good to see John Rambo blowing people’s heads off and ripping people’s necks for a good cause. These were movies that while reminding us of past character glory didn’t try to dwell on past adventures. They played on their built in audiences beautifully without exploiting them for exposition’s sake.

We don’t always have to wonder or care why characters got where they got or see where they’re headed. Filmmakers should have faith that viewers can pick up on expository hints and not have to make an entire trilogy of exposition and once those final credits roll, we should let a story end…or at least limit them to two sequels. Finally, directors if you’re going to retread the same well-worn territory with the same characters, at least have the decency to make it good. You owe your audiences that much.

This blog is published by The Film School & Acting School at the New York Film Academy. Visit our website to learn more about our exciting curriculum!

If you enjoyed this article please share it!