hehe....what did Guinness say about the film? That it was "fairy tale rubbish". In 1999 he said that it was actually his idea to kill off Obi-Wan, persuading Lucas that it would make him a stronger character, and that Lucas agreed to the idea. Guinness stated in the interview, "What I didn't tell Lucas was that I just couldn't go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I'd had enough of the mumbo jumbo." He went on to say that he "shrivelled up" every time Star Wars was mentioned to him.

Being a Star Wars fan I'm quite aware of Sir Alec's dislike towards the trilogy. However, just because Guinness disliked the film doesn't mean to say he didn't act well in it... Perhaps I've got it all wrong, but I'm detecting a strong sense of hostility coming from you...youlots.

Edited March 23, 201511 yr by CFC-Forever

There are some great films that are science fiction based: Metropolis, 2001, Solaris, Alien, Bladerunner & many more. But is Star Wars or its endless sequels & prequels among them? Not a chance.

I disagree. And there are many esteemed movie critics who would also disagree with you, including the late, great Roger Ebert.

Edited March 23, 201511 yr by CFC-Forever

Being a Star Wars fan I'm quite aware of Sir Alec's dislike towards the trilogy. However, just because Guinness disliked the film doesn't mean to say he didn't act well in it... Perhaps I've got it all wrong, but I'm detecting a strong sense of hostility coming from you...youlots.

 

 

oh dear....look, firstly I never disparaged Guinness' acting in the in the film at all - so you're projecting there aren't you? It is trite that decades before Star Wars he was rightfully considered one of the supreme & most interesting actors of his generation & personally he's a great favourite of mine - particularly for his superb comedic talent in many 50's classics. As for the Academy...well, what do you want me to say? Perhaps this: Guinness was not even nominated by the Academy for Kind Hearts & Coronets done more than 25 years earlier?!? What does that say about the Academy - their nominations are usually mostly guff as are their awards albeit that they seem to have improved somewhat over the last decade but still in a patchy sense. As for your detection abilities I'm truly at a loss - where's the hostility exactly in anything I've said. I'm sorry that I've upset you but I feel you're being a bit precious about a set of films that, let's face it, are guff after all.

I disagree. And there are many esteemed movie critics who would also disagree with you, including the late, great Roger Ebert.

 

Ok - your prerogative & sure there'll be plenty who disagree with me as there are plenty who'll agree with me - where does that leave us exactly?

oh dear....look, firstly I never disparaged Guinness' acting in the in the film at all - so you're projecting there aren't you? It is trite that decades before Star Wars he was rightfully considered one of the supreme & most interesting actors of his generation & personally he's a great favourite of mine - particularly for his superb comedic talent in many 50's classics. As for the Academy...well, what do you want me to say? Perhaps this: Guinness was not even nominated by the Academy for Kind Hearts & Coronets done more than 25 years earlier?!? What does that say about the Academy - their nominations are usually mostly guff as are their awards albeit that they seem to have improved somewhat over the last decade but still in a patchy sense. As for your detection abilities I'm truly at a loss - where's the hostility exactly in anything I've said. I'm sorry that I've upset you but I feel you're being a bit precious about a set of films that, let's face it, are guff after all.

Guff in your opinion.

I'm willing to stick my neck out and the say the original trilogy is regarded in the complete opposite by the majority of people.

Guff in your opinion.

I'm willing to stick my neck out and the say the original trilogy is regarded in the complete opposite by the majority of people.

 

Good for you & good for them. 

I loved Star Wars, when the 'original'? was of its time, but lost my way when many years later it was revisited.

I like a bit of escapism, don't know a great deal about sci-fi, but I loved the Bruce Dern film, original Star Trek, original Lost in Space and Asimov's writings.

oh dear....look, firstly I never disparaged Guinness' acting in the in the film at all - so you're projecting there aren't you? It is trite that decades before Star Wars he was rightfully considered one of the supreme & most interesting actors of his generation & personally he's a great favourite of mine - particularly for his superb comedic talent in many 50's classics. As for the Academy...well, what do you want me to say? Perhaps this: Guinness was not even nominated by the Academy for Kind Hearts & Coronets done more than 25 years earlier?!? What does that say about the Academy - their nominations are usually mostly guff as are their awards albeit that they seem to have improved somewhat over the last decade but still in a patchy sense. As for your detection abilities I'm truly at a loss - where's the hostility exactly in anything I've said. I'm sorry that I've upset you but I feel you're being a bit precious about a set of films that, let's face it, are guff after all.

Guff? Well, I'm baffled by that statement. Trust me, I've seen many guff films (including Wrath of the Titans just last night) and this is far from it. They're classics for a reason, y'know? As for you not disparaging Guinness' acting abilities, then why bother commenting in the first place? Because that's literally all I mentioned in my initial post... Regarding your hostility, well, it's just that I'm puzzled as to why you felt the need to tell me that Guinness disliked the films. It was irrelevant.

I loved Star Wars, when the 'original'? was of its time, but lost my way when many years later it was revisited.

I like a bit of escapism, don't know a great deal about sci-fi, but I loved the Bruce Dern film, original Star Trek, original Lost in Space and Asimov's writings.

 

I've read a lot of sci-fi over the years including obviously Asimov who I have a great respect for. I won't comment on the others.

Where does that leave us exactly?

With different viewpoints, of course.

I've read a lot of sci-fi over the years including obviously Asimov who I have a great respect for. I won't comment on the others.

Hmm? I can't help but feel that you're coming across as a little supercilious and pretentious here, youlots.

Guff? Well, I'm baffled by that statement. Trust me, I've seen many guff films (including Wrath of the Titans just last night) and this is far from it. They're classics for a reason, y'know? As for you not disparaging Guinness' acting abilities, then why bother commenting in the first place? Because that's literally all I mentioned in my initial post... Regarding your hostility, well, it's just that I'm puzzled as to why you felt the need to tell me that Guinness disliked the films. It was irrelevant.

 

Well....ok...let's do this: you've said that these Star Wars films are "classics". In what sense are they "classics" - feel free to use any of the filmic disciplines when answering. As for your further Guinness comment it's pretty obvious that his views concerning the films are a bit of a sore point for you aren't they? Why is it irrelevant that such an esteemed actor who participated in the films feels that they were guff? You tell me? In what sense is it irrelevant when you were the one who initially brought up Guinness? 

Hmm? I can't help but feel that you're coming across as a little supercilious and pretentious here, youlots.

 

Listen mate - sledge away - it seems that largely that's all you have. What should I do? Call you plebeian & banalistic in return? Where does that take the discussion?

Alec Guinness was a brilliant actor, famous for much better films than Star Wars.

 

I loved the original Star Wars - when I took my kids to see it.  But I wouldn't have gone without them.  Just like I don't go to pantomimes without children.

Alec Guinness was a brilliant actor, famous for much better films than Star Wars.

 

I loved the original Star Wars - when I took my kids to see it.  But I wouldn't have gone without them.  Just like I don't go to pantomimes without children.

Some things are of their time aren't they. The duchess loved 'Rich Man Poor Man' back in the day, but when I found it on DVD as a present she said she couldn't understand what she saw in it first time around.

Some things are of their time aren't they. The duchess loved 'Rich Man Poor Man' back in the day, but when I found it on DVD as a present she said she couldn't understand what she saw in it first time around.

 

hehe....that rings a bell with me. I can remember when it first came out & vividly remember watching the tv series & like a lot of my adolescent friends at the time we were all infatuated with Kay Lenz & Susan Blakely. It was about 76 or 77 wasn't it? Anyway my Dad had a copy of the book & I remember devouring it which I'm glad I did - not so much because Shaw was anything special but because it lead me onto reading much more serious & valuable texts that my Dad had on WW2 & in a sense that brought me much closer to my Dad & his generation. Anyway I digress - I remember that I similarly had a go at re-watching the tv series in the late 80s & I too was a bit disappointed. I'll say this though - some of Nick Nolte's finest work as an actor.

Well....ok...let's do this: you've said that these Star Wars films are "classics". In what sense are they "classics" - feel free to use any of the filmic disciplines when answering. As for your further Guinness comment it's pretty obvious that his views concerning the films are a bit of a sore point for you aren't they? Why is it irrelevant that such an esteemed actor who participated in the films feels that they were guff? You tell me? In what sense is it irrelevant when you were the one who initially brought up Guinness? 

I only brought up Guinness' acting abilities in the original Star Wars film, nothing more... If you can't see that these films are classics (particular the original and The Empire Strikes Back) then there's no helping you. They are consistently placed in several greatest films of all time lists, from Empire magazine to AFI's 100 Years 100 Movies (beating 2001 in that list). As for Guinness' views regarding these films, I care not. I'm merely perplexed as to why you brought it up originally (a question you have so far failed to answer), that's all

hehe....that rings a bell with me. I can remember when it first came out & vividly remember watching the tv series & like a lot of my adolescent friends at the time we were all infatuated with Kay Lenz & Susan Blakely. It was about 76 or 77 wasn't it? Anyway my Dad had a copy of the book & I remember devouring it which I'm glad I did - not so much because Shaw was anything special but because it lead me onto reading much more serious & valuable texts that my Dad had on WW2 & in a sense that brought me much closer to my Dad & his generation. Anyway I digress - I remember that I similarly had a go at re-watching the tv series in the late 80s & I too was a bit disappointed. I'll say this though - some of Nick Nolte's finest work as an actor.

Edited March 23, 201511 yr by Droogba

Alec Guinness was a brilliant actor, famous for much better films than Star Wars.

 

I loved the original Star Wars - when I took my kids to see it.  But I wouldn't have gone without them.  Just like I don't go to pantomimes without children.

I'm aware of that. I loved him in The Bridge on the River Kwai, and also in the 1970 version of Scrooge, where he played Jacob Marley in a very zany fashion... To say Star Wars is merely for children is idiotic. The Wizard of Oz, now that's for children.

I only brought up Guinness' acting abilities in the original Star Wars film, nothing more... If you can't see that these films are classics (particular the original and The Empire Strikes Back) then there's no helping you. They are consistently placed in several greatest films of all time lists, from Empire magazine to AFI's 100 Years 100 Movies (beating 2001 in that list). As for Guinness' views regarding these films, I care not. I'm merely perplexed as to why you brought it up originally (a question you have so far failed to answer), that's all

 

oh hitchens...what is to be done with you?!? I've asked you to tell us why you think that they are "classics". You continue to avoid answering that question. I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion - only yours! So please particularize & answer the question! You already disparaged Guinness' views - matter for you. But do you have a considered opinion not reliant on others? And again, I did not bring up Star Wars - another poster did - try to follow the provenance of the thread posts. Not too much to ask it is?

The Wizard of Oz, now that's for children.

 

Absolute unmitigated rubbish - one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made.

I'm aware of that. I loved him in The Bridge on the River Kwai, and also in the 1970 version of Scrooge, where he played Jacob Marley in a very zany fashion... To say Star Wars is merely for children is idiotic. The Wizard of Oz, now that's for children.

 

 

I didn't say it was ONLY for children - I said I enjoyed it because I was with my kids.  It isn't the sort of film I would go to without kids, but I never at any point suggested that adults were not entitled to enjoy it.

 

And maybe think before bandying around the word "idiotic".

Star Wars... not my cup of tea. A Man Escaped sounds right up my alley though so have added it to my download queue.

 

Last night I watched an interesting B&W film from 1964 called It Happened Here, which I found very thought-provoking. The film is set in an alternate history version of Britain that had been invaded and occupied by the Nazis during WW2. The fascists control the government but there are pockets of 'partisan' uprising in the countryside, who are supported and armed by the Americans. The story centres on a nurse who wishes to remain neutral but finds herself dragged between the two conflicting sides due to circumstances out of her control.

 

The two guys who produced and directed the film were teenagers at the time and relied on volunteers and borrowed equipment to get it made, so the acting at times is quite amateurish (not the actor in the main role though, she is great) and the dialogue is occasionally hard to make out, but they did a great job creating a believable world with such limited resources. One thing I liked is that the filmmakers did not go the lazy route of making the Nazis the bad guys and the partisans the good guys. Boths sides are equally brutal and the film shows how facism and violence can flourish anywhere under the right circumstances.

It happened here...that takes me back...certainly one of the best films made in 1966 & such astonishing dedication on sticking with it by Mollo & Brownlow & a large measure of support by Kubrick. Pauline Murray's acting in the film was top drawer - any academy nomination? What do you think?

oh hitchens...what is to be done with you?!? I've asked you to tell us why you think that they are "classics". You continue to avoid answering that question. I'm not interested in anyone else's opinion - only yours! So please particularize & answer the question! You already disparaged Guinness' views - matter for you. But do you have a considered opinion not reliant on others? And again, I did not bring up Star Wars - another poster did - try to follow the provenance of the thread posts. Not too much to ask it is?

Look, youlots, I'd love to stay and chat, but unfortunately, I have to go to work soon. So, I'll keep this as brief as possible... If at any point of our discussion I have offended you, then I apologise... As for why I think these films are "classics", well, that's because they are. I wouldn't list Star Wars as my favourite film of all time, I just like films in that genre. You know, the classic heroes journey, good triumphing over evil and all that... But, my opinion doesn't make them "classics". What makes them "classics" is that they're among the most beloved films of all time... Let me try and explain.

 

For it's time, it had great special affects and spectacular Star battles. The characters were fine and the relationships between these characters and the storyline were also fine... It's a cult phenomenon. Its impact on culture even has its own section on Wikipedia. It stayed popular for years even upon re-release 20 years later. It had two highly successful sequels and the second trilogy doesn't even come close to being as good (even with better special affects, battles, digital technology, etc). A good movie doesn't always depend on the best special affects, it has to have a good story, good characters, and emotional quality. It has to draw you in and make you want to come back for more. It's arguably the best movie franchise of all time.

 

Well, that's my lot, youlots... Despite our differences, I'm more than happy to extend the hand of friendship. Safe in the knowledge that you cheered just as I did when Remy's goal trickled over the line yesterday.

Edited March 23, 201511 yr by CFC-Forever