I know anything you disagree with is stupid. I forgot. My apologies. The story behind SW is largely made up of "lifted elements" or There is little more to the story than "lifted elements"

Is that better? Or can you still make a straw man out of something there?

And seriously check out this guys website, it's as close as a split-screen as you're probably going to get. I don't agree with everything he says either but after a while it seems like it's too much to be all just coincidence. Not just the standard formulas to modern storytelling or even the traditional similarities that all myths share like Joseph Campbell wrote about. Some of the things are small, easily dismissed if not for the sheer volume of them, and many things like whole plotlines that were "lifted" are too involved, specific and complex, to be mere homage. Check out the charts they are easy to read even for a guy like you...
http://moongadget.com/origins/doc.html

The charts are fun. Check out this guys LOTR/SW comparison chart...
http://moongadget.com/origins/lotr.html

Here's the Dune/SW comparison chart...
http://moongadget.com/origins/dune.html

He introduces the chart with:

"Here are a few of the superficial similarities between Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings"

Ran across a similar discussion, with more substance...

http://boards.theforce.net/classic_trilogy/b10002/31244529/p1/

"Space Battleship Yamoto"? It's extremely unlikely.

I have the same reaction to your "nothing but the sum" regarding SW as I do when it's applied to Hip Hop, Tarantino, Alan Moore, or whatever else is built on sampling. Sampling, or syncretism, or whatever you want to call it, is a creative act. The elements are being put together in a certain way that forces them into a particularized communication with each other. When it works, you'll get a new experience that wasn't inherent in any of the source material. Citizen Kane didn't create any of its techniques, but it was the way all these extant techniques were put together that made the film such a cinematic revelation.

Likewise, just because many stories share the same structure (e.g., a hero's journey), that in no way entails what kind of quality or experience each story provides. Creativity still plays a role here by filling the structure in.

But in the original SW, the structure is not just the basic story structure of the "heroes journey", it's several huge actual specific plotlines and plot elements taken from other sources, melded together skillfully and the "filling in" is almost entirely "lifted" from other sources as well, some bits may be entirely coincidental, but the quantity and totality of the lifting suggests otherwise.

Like Allen said "The first Star Wars was *intended* as an homage to many things," and now when I watch it I have a hard time not seeing those homages. And I don't see that as inherently negative.

I'm sure we all can recognize elements of the heroic journey in anything we read or see, or even just the similarities in one movie or another, without it negatively effecting the experience.

In my case because SW is almost entire "lifted" elements of various size and shape, I have a hard time seeing SW as transcending the collective homage anymore.

I think Indiana Jones does a better job of transcending homage, because it isn't entirely homage. I can watch Wrath of Kahn an notice it's Moby Dick told from the point of view of the whale. And see it still see it as unique twist, and i still enjoy it, i still think Lucas blending the original SW parts all together was very creative. Like I said above, I give him more credit on the writing than you do and I think SW was much more imaginative and successfully crafted than similar attempts at making nearly 100% recycled movies, like ID4 and Silverado.

Where I get confused though is statements like...



How is it possible for everything to be influenced by SW, but it's "bullshit" to recognize the huge influences on SW?

It took imagination and creativity to construct a movie almost entirely from the parts of other movies, serials, novels comics etc... it's still the sum total of all of George Lucas' influences.

I was thinking about the name again. If something with "Mars" in the title won't sell tickets, maybe it's not a good idea to make a big budget movie about Mars.

Oh yeah, if anyone is interested youtube "John Carter animated." It shows an unfnished clips of a proposed Barsoom cartoon.

It's not bullshit to recognize the influences on SW. It's bullshit to thump your chest about it after you grew up on SW.



I heard Elvis Presley stole his entire act from some negroes, though.

Nice. If you don't actually want to discuss what I was posting about, why have you responded? Just to pick a fight? To counter the evil that is my post?

How is it chest thumping bullshit to make an observation about how your own personal perception of a movie has evolved over the years? I get it, you don't see it the same way. I'm not saying you should. I'm not saying anyone should. It was just my observation about the last couple of times I watched the original SW. You're entitled to your own opinion. But why is my own perception, in your words "wrong."

How is a personal opinion "chest thumping bullshit?"

I had no idea Sinestro was in John Carter...

http://www.craveonline.com/film/articles...green-lantern-2

I found a link to a downloadable file. The page has a lot of cool art as well, the link is way down at the bottom...

http://www.erbzine.com/mag21/2176.html

Scroll down and click on "View a John Carter of Mars Animation Excerpt" and you can download a FLV file