*fades in*

I have a younger brother, about 19 years old. This is not unusual. Many people have little brothers.

My little brother is prone to saying and doing things that are annoying and/or embarassing. This is also not unusual. It seems to be an almost universal trait for younger brothers to have.

Every once in awhile though, a younger brother will say or do something so outrageous, so unbelievable, that you can never let them forget it. You will remind them of it at every oppurtunity, and possibly arrange to have it carved into their headstone. Tonight, such a thing happened.

Myself, my little brother, and my step brother were gathered in the living room. I was lurking the Inn while we all watched Lord of the Rings. We were at the end of the final movie; the ring is gone, Mount Doom is erupting, things are looking sad. My step brother (who is prone to random and often inappropriate comments or jokes), says that this movie has more lava in it than any given Nintendo game, making jokes about the Mario and Zelda series. I motion to him to be quiet, trying to enjoy things wrapping up.

That should have been the end of it. Things could have ended right there and I would never have thought about it again. Then my little brother remembered that he was, in fact, a little brother, and spoke. He said, with complete seriousness, "Yeah, except those games came out before Lord of the Rings was published."


...


I facepalmed so hard I actually knocked myself out of my chair. What do you say to something like that?

Am I alone? Anyone else got a little brother story that bad?

*evaporates*

Are those arguments I had with people (a couple are relatives who don't deserve the title) that actually prefer the more recent Star Wars trilogy to the old.

And then of course there's the Twilight stuff ...

My brother has recently returned from Kenya, he was visiting the Nakuru slums if anybody is interested, and was sharing his photos with us and our extended family. Now my brother is a good camera man, and he had loads of good pictures, including pictures of Water Buffalo. My oldest younger cousin is 11 (I think) and asked why Water Buffalo were called Water Buffalo... now this is a reasonable question until you become aware of the fact she was looking at a picture of two Water Buffalo in front of Lake Nakuru.

(As an additional note my cousin also stated afterwards that she didn't think there was any water in Kenya, but this isn't quite as astounding as the prior face palm moment.)

BTW: Darth Maul was cool, but only because he used a double bladed light saber. Despite that the original trilogy was better... Oh, and hands up if you are looking forwards to The Hobbit!

*Must not talk about Phantom Menace...*

(PS. I recall there being a Phantom Menace conversation on rdinn back in 2000. I think I was hopeful that the next one would be better. I was wrong ... )

Well, Phantom Menace was not so bad, for it's target audience. Darth Maul looked really cool en really evil, but he didn't do that much evil. He didn't do that much at all.
In other words: it's a kids' movie. George opened up the Star Wars world for a whole new generation, and in doing so also drew in a lot of the people who actually spend money; their parents.

Don't tell me you still believe that studios make movies because they like the stories so much. This is business, and from a marketing point of view, the new SW series performed wonderfully.

(Of course, the trick is to make good movies that earn a lot of money for a studio, or make great movies on a low budget in an independent manner, but that's the idealist point of view).

Perhaps you're right, and the new SW films did accomplish what they set out to do. But, will anyone in 20 years time be buying their kids toys of Jar Jar Binks? Or waxing lyrically about the exciting, tension-filled discussions in the Jedi Council?

Somehow I doubt it.

Of course all Hollywood-funded films are money-making enterprises. But, it is possible to make intelligent films that make money (the recent Batman films). Or even have new takes on old classics that don't completely torch the cherished memories of its fans (the recent Muppets movie for instance).

Yes, you can make better films with the same means, but that requires a certain determination.

A thought occurred to me, but I don't know if it has any merit or not: would Lucas have made the same movies back then (episode 4-6) if he had all the means he has nowadays? Somewhere along the line his tone changed (f.i. Solo shoots first in the bar vs he doesn't). But what if his tone didn't change, but the circumstances changed. Maybe his tone always leaned towards a more childish approach (ewoks anyone?), and was he moderated by other people, telling him to keep it more mature?

Anyway, I don't know what people will look back on and how. I saw the first trilogy of Star Wars films for the first time when I was about 13. They were on TV, one film split in half to feature two evenings (who knows why, possibly due to their length).
I loved them.
When the new trilogy came out, I thought they were fine, but not as good as the first. But I see kids now who grow up and experience all 6 films in a row and they don't see the difference. This is all a matter of perspective. Without the nostalgia, the first trilogy might not even be that much better than the second. It's just really hard to judge this issue from an objective point of view.

Being young enough to have experienced them all at the same time... yeah, the newer trilogy was shinier, but the older trilogy's plot made much more sense. and had that kind of kitschy element (Yoda puppet) that made Alexander Nevsky an amazingly brilliant film.

If you've seen it, you will know what I'm on about. Polystyrene ice anyone? ^^