In defense of STAR WARS 1-3 by reginaroadie

The problem wasn’t that he killed children or that Padme excused it. The problem was that they told us. That dialogue was completely unnecessary and forced. It’s not necessary to tell us that killing children is bad. We aren’t stupid.

But going on a rampage and killing Tuskens because they kidnap, torture and kill your mom is hardly anything that might be called Dark Lordish, by itself. This is something that might be excused as temporary insanity. But then coming home and whining about it? They killed his mother!. His poor dear mother that he, for some reason, left in slavery while he lived it up on the fancy Jedi planets. There is so much about this whole thing that screams narcissistic psychosis. And they completely missed it all in that scene.

Padme was right. To be angry is to be human. Again something else we don’t need explained to us. There is a difference between being human angry and being dark lord angry. Instead of blatantly pointing out the obvious, what they should have done is explained or presented the distinction. What about this forebodes Darth Vader? Because I don’t get it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 12, 2005 5:02 PM

BARRY

What might have been interesting is if Lucas had Anakin keep the Tusken slaughter a secret from Padme. It wouldn't help my opinion of him any but it would greatly help my opinion of her. Then in Episode III, after she's already married to him and pregnant she can find out as the shit is hitting the fan. Would have made for some great drama, I think.

Or, Anakin could have gone ballistic killing some of the male Tuskens but accidentally killing a child, prompting him to break down in front of Padme, disgusted with what he's done. That way we get to see the consequences of him giving into the Darkside while still making him sympathetic to the audience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 12, 2005 5:07 PM

Or just having him keep it secret from her, but having Padme realize (unspoken) that he had done “something.” But deep down, she knew. Played right that would have been scarier then the way they did it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 12, 2005 5:55 PM

REGINAROADIE

After what I read about the whole killing the Tusken raiders bit, I did a little digging online, and I actually found this old article written by filmmaker and gigantic STAR WARS geek Kevin Smith. It was his interpretiation of ATTACK OF THE CLONES written for FILM COMMENT, and he brings up some valid observations about that scene as well as the whole movie.

"...From the get-go, Lucas captures my limited imagination with one simple proposition. Darth Vader was once a teenager. How pedestrian,yet how profound! Evil's gotta start somewhere, right? Why not show why Johnny can't read - or in this case, can't play well with others, and insists on using the Force to choke underlings who don't live up to his expectations? From the hit-or-miss origin of Phantom Menace's take on baby Anakin as the galactic Hitler in short pants, Clones ups the ante by presenting us with the heart of darkness right where everyone's always known it lies: in the passions of a volatile high schooler.

Right off the bat, Anakin is portrayed as a kid who thinks he knows more than he does, and insists on proving to everybody that he's as good as them, if not better. I went to high school with his guy. Granted, he didn't grow up to carbon-freeze anybody (in truth, I believe he works at a Shell station now), but had he been given a lightsaber and taught how to pull the Jedi Mind Trick on folks, he might've.

In Clones, Anakin is a twelfth grader with a license and parents who want him home by eight: he's a disaster waiting to happen. Who else but a tortured teen leaps out of a sky-speeder to capture a bounty hunter who's talked smack about his girl (or, in the case of Clones, set loose killer centipedes in her bedroom)? With little-to-no concern for his own well-being, based largely on his assumption that he's immortal (that worst of teenage attributes), young Skywalker forces Zam Wessel's craft (how sad is it that I'm 31 and I know the name of a character who's never really identified and appears only fleetingly in the film?) to crash-land in a densely populated city, and then pursues her (it) into a bar only to watch his mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi, make the final collar. And how does the Force-ful whelp wrap it all up with the wide-eyed cantina bystanders? He tosses them a condescending "This is Jedi business." The balls on this kid! ...

There's something bittersweet about the fall of Darth Vader now, that hadn't existed before Clones: had his mother simply died of old age, the guy might never have developed that extreme case of asthma he seems to suffer from in Star Wars, Empire, and Return of the Jedi.

Which leads to the most haunting moment of Clones for me: when Anakin breaks down to his puppy love, Amidala, and confesses that he butchered that no-good bunch of sand-eating bandage wearers with his hi-tech Zippo. This scene really resonated with me, because Amidala wears this expression that very quietly says "Holy Christ I'm in love with a human time-bomb." The sad, hopeless look on her face upon learning of his murder spree brought to mind that moment in Jedi when Luke asked Leia if she rememered what her (and his) mother was like. Leia (in what may be Carrie Fisher's finest hour in the original trilogy) reminisced that her mother always seemed sad. Here, nearly 20 years later, we get to see what Leia was talking about.

And that's what worked best for me about the Anakin arc in Clones: the doomed love affair of Anakin and Amidala. Most of the critics dismissed this as the flick's most ham-fistedly handled aspect, but I thought it played out tragically and beautifully. High marks to both Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman, because I completely bought their relationship. He wants her desperately without really even know! ing why, as do all teenage boys when they find who they assume is their one-true in high school. And even though she knows this guy is poison, she can't help but fall for him - the little slave-boy that grew up to be a conflicted, impetuous hat tank who insists everyone's giving him a raw deal. In high school, the really hot chicks always went for the massive ****-ups, and eventually wound up married to them. But this marriage doesn't end in small town affiars and divorce; this marriage ends with the girl scattering her kids across the galaxy to save them from their father, who by that point is more machine than man."

I'm gonna assume that you're not going to change your mind after reading this, but I'm just wondering if you at least can agree with the points Kevin makes.

Also, to the dude that said the bit about Anakin leaving his mom to live it up on Coruscant, in case if you hadn't noticed, both of the were slaves that were owned by Watto. In exchange for the parts they needed from him, Qui-Gon wanted to free both Anakin and his mom. Watto compromised by rolling a dice to see which one would go. Qui used the Force to make it that Anakin goes free, which leads to a tearful separation which oddly enough isn't ruined by the kid's horrid acting ability.

Peace

"NO HAI ES BANDAI. THERE IS....NO.....BAND. AND YET....WE HEAR A BAND."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 12, 2005 6:29 PM

BARRY

Quote:
I'm gonna assume that you're not going to change your mind after reading this, but I'm just wondering if you at least can agree with the points Kevin makes.

I actually have read Smith's review of the movie before, it's a good review and he makes some good points. I enjoyed The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones (most of it anyway). I'm not approaching this subject from a cynical position where I think Lucas is a has-been. I just can't shake my gut reaction to the slaughter and it's after effects.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 12, 2005 6:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
Also, to the dude that said the bit about Anakin leaving his mom to live it up on Coruscant, in case if you hadn't noticed, both of the were slaves that were owned by Watto. In exchange for the parts they needed from him, Qui-Gon wanted to free both Anakin and his mom. Watto compromised by rolling a dice to see which one would go. Qui used the Force to make it that Anakin goes free, which leads to a tearful separation which oddly enough isn't ruined by the kid's horrid acting ability.

So I saw. Still doesn’t make sense to me that they wouldn’t have gone back for her.

And I think yours and Kevin Smith’s analysis of that scene makes a lot of sense. I see the point of the scene. I’m just not sure that I see the point of the dialogue as it existed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 12, 2005 8:26 PM

GWEK

Myself, I love Eps 1-2 as much as 4-6 but in different ways (4-6 has much better characters, but 1-2 has a richer WORLD, in my opinion), but one of the things that rings totally false is that no one thought to get Shmi out of slavery.

Now, I can see that the Jedi Council might not be able to do it (because, clearly, any money they have goes to maintaining their fancy giant temple and top of the line experimental starfighters rather than helping poor folks), but what about Palpatine? Isn't he all buddy-buddy with Anankin, as well as something of a mentor? I mean, in a decade, Anakin never once whined about his mom to Palpatine? I don't see it.

Even more, how about the government of Naboo? I would guess that purchasing a slave on Tatooine probably costs less than one of the Queen's dresses, so how about something like "Oh, hey, Anakin Skywalker saved our whole PLANET by destroying the droid control ship. Why don't we get his mom out of slavery and give her a decent middle-management government job?"

Obviously, the story needs Anakin to be separate from his mom, but I don't think it would've suffered if she'd been set free, chosen to stay on Tatooine so as not to interfere with his "destiny" and simply MET Clieg Lars rather than being purchased by him.

Way it is now, it's just sloppy writing.

But, hey, by the Mace Windu says "This party is over," I forget about all that stuff and grin like a seven-year old until the end of the movie...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2005 3:37 AM

CALHOUN

... what about C3P0's lines... "I was programmed for ettiquette not destruction!" , "what a drag", etc , ect,.... I cringe at lines like these, way to corny for me.

As an aside, I was rewatching the originals the other day and got to the cantina scene where Obi One cut that dudes arm off and I had the thought why did he do that? He is an all powerful Jedi! and Jedi are supposed to value life and be peaceful until they have no choice but to use force. Surely Obi One could have force pulled the gun away from the badguy or force pushed him away or used force suggestion to resolve to situation without bloodshed!

Or do I just have to much free time on my hands?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2005 6:12 AM

GWEK

The etiquette line doesn't bother me, but I have to admit that "What a drag" and "I'm quite beside myself" turn the grin rictus.

As for Obi-Wan, clearly, he's cuts the arm off because he's just had a drink. In Episode II, we see that he enjoys doing that. "Give me a shot, luv, I'm about to hack someone's arm clean off."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2005 6:40 AM

Obiwan didn’t kill him.

Frankly, I think when no-good rotten aliens with the death sentence on 12 systems pull a gun on you in a cantina, they should loose an arm. Go Obiwan! He values life and peace. He’s just not a pussy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2005 6:41 AM

CYBERSNARK

Well, there's the whole Kung Fu "intimidate before you hurt, hurt before you injure, injure before you maim, maim before you kill" kinda idea. Ultimately, losing an arm is a fairly minor thing in the technologically advanced GFFA.

What most irritates me about the Prequels is the shoddy writing and the reliance on CGI.

I'm a firm believer that a script should work in a dead read-through, with no audio-visual effects. TPM & AotC just don't, IMHO.

The story is great, no argument at all on that front, but Lucas really should've hired a script doctor or ghostwriter, rather than pouring his entire budget into the special effects and marketing, and trusting them to carry the film.

Let's face it, without the LucasEmpire behind it, these scripts would never have been made as is. Both movies sound like the rough drafts of good scripts that I'd really like to have seen realized.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2005 7:09 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:
Quote:

It was directly marketed at the children of those of us who were raised on SW some 25 yrs ago

I'm not sure if this comment was supposed to be a criticism or not, but personally I don't think GL should have made films for the original viewers. They're all designed to be family films, or more accurately, children's stories that adults can enjoy. They weren't made with us in mind, they're fantasy stories to put your kids to bed to. You may see it as betraying the fans to do that, I'd say it'd be betraying the Star Wars legacy to do anything different.

Quote:

Cudos for Peter Jackson for bringing to life a much more well known story to the big screen. I believe PJ did what Lucas now only dreams of doing.

Completely disagree, PJ directed a good story, but in no way did he bring to life the books. Too much was changed, 'loosely based on' would be a more accurate way of describing it.

First of all, my criticism about Lucas is more about how he's lost his ability to tell a story, and not for who the movies are made. I happen to think that the 'fun for the whole family' feel of the 1st three movies has been replaced w/ visions of theme park rides and cheap souvenirs instead of telling a good story.

Second, anyone who defends GL while criticizing PJ is simply not going to see eye to eye w/ me on this issue. Sure, there were variations in LOTR which I viamently disagree, but still... as a whole, the LOTR trilogy was a far better effort than what GL has put forth in the last 20 yrs, if not ever.

Further still, I feel that anyone who comes to the defense of GL in regards to eps 1,2 and 3 is fooling themselves. Sure, there might be some fans out there who genuinely enjoy these films on their own, but I think it's more honest to suggest that a majority are simplly projecting their strongly held feelings for the past works, and are too loyal to admit this latest collection for what it really is... a fiasco.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2005 11:41 AM

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG

It wasn't really meant to be a criticism of Peter Jackson, I love the LoTR movies and hold PJ in incredibly high esteem as a filmmaker, but my point was that the movies are not in any way a translation of the books (okay, I guess there's a small case to be made for fellowship but the others?).

I get the feeling that people who complain about the new trilogy are just pissed that the films weren't just a remake of the originals. Yes, Jar-Jar is annoying for adults but kids love him, yes Jake Lloyd is the worst child actor today, but can you honestly say anything different about Mark Hamill? Especially in ANH. Yes the dialogue is awful, but if you can't say the same about the originals you've watched them to much to care.

I really don't see how people don't enjoy the story. The fall to the dark side not as some epic struggle between light and dark but human problems, a bad childhood, a difficult romance, the desire for a father-figure. Real things people go through. Palpatine's scheming and plotting are all hugely interesting (to me at least), and make Darth Vader a completely different (and in my opinion more interesting) character in retrospect. The lightsaber fights, the way of life, the beauty of the old republic all make me care about how crappy the situation has got by Episode 4, and in my opinion, make the originals better films.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2005 6:54 PM

REGINAROADIE

Hear hear. Totally agree with everything you said. You get a sense with these three movies that Lucas is essentially setting up the back story of the originals. And I think that once all six films are out on DVD, and watched back to back consecutively, all of them put together will equal far more than the sum of it's parts.

And the thing about Luke fits in with the whole realm of introducing STAR WARS characters. At first we might not like them from the beginning, but then we see their better characteristics shine through, thus reddeming them and their validity, and making for fascinating character developments. The noble Luke Skywalker who faces down Palpatine in the third act of JEDI is a far cry from the whiny teenager who wanted to go to Toshi's station to pick up power converters (for some reason I think those words could come out of Kaylee fairly easy). And it's the same thing with Anakin. Beyond the lightsabers and the bickeing droids and the Falcon going into hyperdrive, the whole film series is about how an innocent kid with incredible potential is corrupted by power, falls from grace, and is ultimately saved by his child.

Now if that ain't mythic, I don't know what is.

"NO HAI ES BANDAI. THERE IS....NO.....BAND. AND YET....WE HEAR A BAND."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:31 AM

To the Lucas bashers here, I say this. Wait until it's fashionable to do the same to Joss. It won't seem so cool when that happens.

George Lucas has become an easy target for fanboy hate, and frankly, it's pathetic! You didn't like the Special Editions, and the first two prequels? Fine! Get over it! Movie series rarely have a perfect run. Godfather III? The majority of the Bond films? The Matrix sequels? Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom? Yes, Peter Jackson avoided that curse with LOTR, but would he have done as well if he had three more to make, or if he had written them himself, without Tolken's books to guide him?

George has never claimed to be a great writer, but he is a remarkable filmmaker. He has risen the bar in so many area's of film and entertainment. THX has revolutionized theater sound. ILM has been the leading edge of special effects since it's inception, and other effects houses like Zoic and Digital Domain exist because ILM paved the way. Lucas Arts continues to push gaming to the next level. The movie experience (at the theater and in our homes) is better for everyone, because of George's contributions to the industry.

Frankly, I'm amazed the first two Star Wars prequels weren't worse, considering how many hats George was wearing! He was extremely ambitious trying to produce, write, and direct, while at the same time literally writing the book on an entirely new platform/camera for digital fimmaking cinematography! He also had the balls to use his own money to make these movies, without the safety net of a studio to share the risk with.

Unfortunately, new technology means there's a learning curve. Each prequel has gotten better, and if the rumors are correct, the third movie could be the best of the entire series. Give the guy some credit. He deserves it.

Before you bash a filmmaker's work, try making a movie yourself! I did, and it's hard, frustrating, sleep depriving, heart breaking work. It sucks the life out of you and takes up all of your time! It is also the best experience you'll ever have! Until you walk a mile in his shoes, you'll never understand why it's a crapshoot everytime you make a movie. I did, as a Producer on our film (one hat was enough thankyou), and I have nothing but repect for filmmakers like George Lucas, Peter Jackson and Joss Whedon. We just made a small low budget indie movie, and it took over three years of our lives to complete it. I can't even imagine the work, or the size of the army it takes to make a movie on the scale of Star Wars, LOTR, or Serenity, but I had a small taste with our movie, and it's very hard work! Do they always get it right? No, but when they do!!!!! WOW!

For info on our movie:
http://www.guardianoftherealm.com/epk/index.html
Trailer: http://www.guardianoftherealm.com/epk/trailer.html

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
To the Lucas bashers here, I say this. Wait until it's fashionable to do the same to Joss. It won't seem so cool when that happens.

Writing off everyone who criticizes Lucas and the prequels as doing it because it's "fashionable" is an unfair generalization. Yes, there are the knee-jerk fanboys out there who scream "Lucas raped my childhood!" at every turn, but there also plenty of us who have well reasoned criticisms. Some of us "bash" because we, god forbid, are genuinely disappointed with the films. The last time I did something because it was fashionable was...well, never.

Quote:
George has never claimed to be a great writer, but he is a remarkable filmmaker.

Which is exactly why so many people are disappointed with the prequels. Lucas is aware that he's not a great writer, yet chose to write the films by himself anyway. That screams egotism. Lucas is a good filmmaker, but he'd be even better if he addressed his weaknesses instead of apologizing for them. Bring in someone who is a good writer to help him strengthen that aspect of the film. He did that with the original trilogy and it helped.

Quote:
Give the guy some credit. He deserves it.

The guy absolutely deserves credit for his accomplishments. That, however, does not put him beyond criticism when he fails to live up to the standards he himself set.

Quote:
Before you bash a filmmaker's work, try making a movie yourself!

So someone's not allowed to have a critical opinion of something unless they've done it before? By that logic, no one should be allowed to say they like a film either. I mean, they've never made one, so how would they know it was really any good? Let's all walk out of the theater and keep our mouths shut.

It all comes down to this: Some people like the prequels. Fine. Some of us don't like the prequels. Also fine. As long as we offer constructive reasons for opinions, they are valid and have every right to be expressed.

Quote:
Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:
I get the feeling that people who complain about the new trilogy are just pissed that the films weren't just a remake of the originals.

Maybe that's true for some, but it's absolutely not true for me or most of the people I've discussed the prequels with. I would have been even more disappointed with the prequels if they were just a retread of the originals.

Quote:
I really don't see how people don't enjoy the story.

A good concept does not necessarily translate to a good film. Personally, I like the story. I just don't think it was told well.

-------------------------------------------------
The space monkeys ate my homework.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bibsy:
So someone's not allowed to have a critical opinion of something unless they've done it before?

Actually, according to critic Roger Ebert, most critics shouldn't, because they haven't. He speaks from experience, because he actually has written a script that was made into a movie.

I'm not saying you can't be critical about his work, but be specific. My quote was "Before you BASH a filmmaker's work, try making a movie yourself!" Generalized "Lucas sucks!" rants are pathetic. It's those "knee-jerk" fanboys I was speaking to. Don't talk about "logic" and then unlogically try to put words in my mouth! Being a critic about someone's work is one thing. Generalized bashing of one's career without any experience in the work involved is another!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Actually, according to critic Roger Ebert, most critics shouldn't, because they haven't.

I have nothing but respect for Roger Ebert, but I've gotta disagree with him on that. By that logic, I shouldn't comment on the meal I ate the other night because I'm not a chef. I've never made a film, but I'm intelligent enough to understand the process and how complicated and difficult it is.

Quote:
I'm not saying you can't be critical about his work, but be specific. My quote was "Before you BASH a filmmaker's work, try making a movie yourself!" Generalized "Lucas sucks!" rants are pathetic. It's those "knee-jerk" fanboys I was speaking to. Don't talk about "logic" and then unlogically try to put words in my mouth!

I didn't put words in your mouth. There haven't been any "this movie sucks!" comments in this thread so far, which is why, to me, your comments came off as commentary on the criticisms that have appeared in this thread. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. It's just that you addressed your comments "to the Lucas bashers here", and I haven't seen anyone mindlessly bashing in this thread.

-------------------------------------------------
The space monkeys ate my homework.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bibsy:
I didn't put words in your mouth. There haven't been any "this movie sucks!" comments in this thread so far, which is why, to me, your comments came off as commentary on the criticisms that have appeared in this thread. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. It's just that you addressed your comments "to the Lucas bashers here", and I haven't seen anyone mindlessly bashing in this thread.

This whole thread is about the very subject of Lucas bashing. Like the original poster, I was adding my defense of his work!

As far as putting words in my mouth, you said

Quote:
Originally posted by Bibsy:
"So someone's not allowed to have a critical opinion of something unless they've done it before? By that logic, no one should be allowed to say they like a film either.

I never said you can't have a critical opinion, you said I did! I said, "Before you bash a filmmaker's work, try making a movie yourself!" There is a distinction that you chose to ignore.

As far as your food analogy goes, you've never cooked a meal of your own? Ever? Not even slapping together a simple sandwich?
Ebert isn't a filmmaker, but he has written a script for one, so that gives him some perspective. You may not be a trained Chef, but you have probably cooked a few meals in your lifetime, and that gives you some perspective on the cooking process.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
This whole thread is about the very subject!

But there has been no bashing within it. As I explained and APOLOGIZED for, I misinterpreted who your comments were directed at. Yes, the original poster commented on the bashing that has been done, but the discussion since then has taken the route of intelligent discussion of the films, which is why I misinterpreted who your comments were directed at.

Quote:
I never said you can't have a critical opinion, you did! I said, "Before you bash a filmmaker's work, try making a movie yourself!" There is a distinction that you chose to ignore.

And as I said, I thought your use of the word "bash" was directed at the criticisms made within this thread. I did not see those critcisms as bashing, which is why I used the term "critical opinion" instead of "bashing" in my reply. It was a misunderstanding, not a case of me ignoring the term you used.

Quote:
As far as your food ananogy goes, you've never cooked a meal of your own? Ever? Not even slapping together a simple sandwich?

Ebert isn't a filmmaker, but he has written a script for one, so that gives him some perspective. You may not be a trained Chef, but you have probably cooked a few meals in your lifetime, and that gives you some perspective on the cooking process.

I've also made home movies with a camcorder. Does that lend perspective on filmmaking? Seriously, though, I'd argue that watching movies and applying critical thought to them, or even watching a behind-the-scenes special, can offer perspective on filmmaking. Nothing near the real experience, but it can lend understanding.

Look, I don't want this to get needlessly antagonistic. I agree with your original post that mindless bashing is unwarranted. I just honestly thought it was directed at some of the folks in this thread and not bashers out in the world.

-------------------------------------------------
The space monkeys ate my homework.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:20 AM

Okay Bisby, we both suffered from a misunderstanding. Nuff said! I wasn't clear on who my audience was. I wasn't talking about the contributors to this thread, but to all the bashers who visit the entire board who find it fashonable to flame on Lucas.

Your comments about cooking though, prove my point. You said yourself that you would never call yourself a Chef with the skill to make a meal fit to be served in a restaurant. How did you come to this conclusion? Because your experince cooking your own meals gave you some perspective on how hard it really must be for a chef to prepair a quality meal, and the training it must take.

BTW: Making home movies is how most filmmakers got their start. If the video is just vacation stuff, well no, you're not really a filmmaker, but if it tells a story (even a silly one) then you're a filmmaker. It's not the size of your audience that matters, it's the story you are trying to tell!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:36 AM

Bygones, MacBaker.

Quote:
Your comments about cooking though, prove my point. You said yourself that you would never call yourself a Chef with the skill to make a meal fit to be served in a restaurant. How did you come to this conclusion? Because your experince cooking your own meals gave you some perspective on how hard it really must be for a chef to prepair a quality meal, and the training it must take.

I think I'm saddled by the bias of knowing something about filmmaking (without actually having made one) but arguing a point for the people who don't. So I'm just gonna shutup on this and let them fend for themselves.

Quote:
BTW: Making home movies is how most filmmakers got their start. If the video is just vacation stuff, well no, you're not really a filmmaker, but if it tells a story (even a silly one) then you're a filmmaker. It's not the size of your audience that matters, it's the story you are trying to tell!

My home movies consist of my nephew opening Christmas gifts. So nope, not a filmmaker.

I am a writer, though, so I heartily second that the story matters more than the audience size (and oh how very small my audience is).

-------------------------------------------------
The space monkeys ate my homework.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:13 AM

EVILMIKE

Quote:
Originally posted by chronicthehedgehog:
I really don't see how people don't enjoy the story.

I'm not sure anyone here is complaining about the story in general. It's the specifics of the execution that people have problems with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:47 AM

THALOS

The biggest problem I have with the sequals is that GL quantifies The Force.

In ep. 4-6, The Force is labeled as a "religion" and it is very mystical and undefined. In ep. 1 all the Jedi do is take a blood test to get the metaclorians(Sorry, I cannot spell) level of Anakin.

To me this is a huge travesty. Before the impression is that ANYONE can become a Jedi Knight if they can learn and appreciate what The Force represents. However, now if you do not have the prerequesite blood results, too bad for you.

Otherwise, I agree with most people in this thread the move storylines are not that bad, and I generally enjoyed the films. Am I disappointed by some of the decisions GL made in laying the foundation, yes, but hey to each his own.

"Whoa, good Bible."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:57 PM

SHAVEDAPE

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
But I would like to take an opposing stance to this fashionable crucifixtion of a pop culture institution.

I would take a stance against fashionable crucifixtion as well. I believe in judging everything on its own merits. That won't stop me from offering my views on how something could have been changed to have a better impact on me as an audience member.

Quote:
In all honesty, I enjoyed PHANTOM MEANCE and ATTACK OF THE CLONES.

Is there any reason to believe that people who did not enjoy them are not being honest?

Quote:
My childhood fascination and enrapturement with the perils of the Skywalkers were ignited once again when I saw the pod race on Tattooine and the chase through the streets of Coruscant.

We're probably not going to agree on much then. Which isn't a bad thing. But those sequences and most others did not evoke memories of the OT in me. I could try to rationalize why but I would probably write pages. I'll just leave it at "they did not work for me".

Quote:
And seeing the clues and hints laid down now which would pay off in re-watching the Holy Trilogy and future installments was a subversive pleasure for the geek in me.

There's some fun in this but at no point so far have I thought "Wow, so that's how that came to be". More like "Hmm, so that's how that came to be".

Quote:
Truth be told, the one complaint I have of Ep 1 was of the casting of Jake Lloyd as young Anakin, who was without a doubt the worst child actor I've ever seen.

I think Lucas originally meant to start with a 12 year old Anakin. I'm not sure why he decided to go so young in the end. I think it was rationalized by wanting to make his parting from his mother more poignant but that was a fairly weak reason to change the character's level of maturity so significantly. Locking yourself into having to go that young with a specific look makes the job too hard. They should have either stayed older or been more flexible on the look.

Quote:
Jar-Jar is only a minor character at best in the whole spectrum of the series, along the same lines as Watto and Mon Mothma. A part that has some value to the proceedings, but is not the central figure to the proceedings.

This is true except for not being the case. Jar Jar essentially took the role of Chewbacca as the "freaky alien" of the group. Though they are obviously very different characters, it can be argued that Jar Jar had a greater influence on the story line than Chewie. Chewie was never designated as a representative in the Senate who handed control of the Republic to the Emperor. The story would have been much more credible if the Emperor had simply used his dark force powers to influence or corrupt a senator into helping him.

Quote:
It's a bit stupid to label the entire failure of a movie to one character that probably had about half an hour to 45 minutes worth of screen time.

That is a heck of a lot of screen time. As much or more than a lot of major characters get in any movie, particularly ones with revolve around an ensemble cast. I have a lot of problems with Jar Jar but he's just one facet of why the movies don't work for me. I would never term the movies a failure because they made money and were enjoyed by a lot of people. But so did Meet The Fockers and I wouldn't necessarily term that a great movie from a personal standpoint.

Quote:
Boss Nass with that acid reflex/seizure thing he kept doing ticked me off. But it's still a minor complaint.

Jar Jar, Boss Nass, the alien announcer at the Pod Race, Dex the Diner manager with plumber's low riding pants. The decision to go with this cartoonish, childish tone in the CGI creatures really took away from the gritty and authentic feel of creatures in the OT. Lucas seemed more interested in appealing to a Saturday morning cartoon tone than the tone set down in the first three movies (pre-Special Editions).

Quote:
The wooden dialouge is another admittable problem. Lucas himself admits that writing is not his best suit. That it's in shooting and the editing room where he really flourishes.

It was never his strong suit. Some of the most memorable lines that gave characters life in the original trilogy were either written by someone else or ad libbed by the performers (particularly in the case of Han). The point is realize your strong suits and delegate. Trust someone other than yourself because you're probably the worst judge of something you're not particularly great at.

Quote:
But if you think about it, if 1-3 are set in times of prosperity, the talking styles of the people would seem a bit rigid, while during times of chaos people would be a bit free-er with their choice of words and delivery (as evident in Eps 4-6 and our own BDH's).

To be honest this seems like rationalization of the highest degree. We live in relatively prosperous and peaceful times ourselves compared to other parts of the world or other times in history. We still speak creatively and with personality. I don't think they cast big name actors for the prequels because they wanted to go with boring, stilted writing and delivery.

Quote:
And really, STAR WARS has never been an actor's institution to begin with.

That was then. This is 16 years later with a massively rich merchandising and licensing empire still thriving and modern technology. Liam, Ewan, Natalie, Hayden, Christopher Lee, Emperor dude, etc. All of these people have proven to be capable performers in other movies. I think with the exception of Liam, Lee, and Emperor dude, we haven't seen very good performances, particularly out of the two main leads (Hayden and Natalie). This could be because of any combination of writing, directing, and editing as well as the performers or the process. Whatever the case, there's little excuse for the LEADS to be this uneven in a major franchise.

Quote:
Even though we already know what that building's going to look like, we're just seeing for the first time the pouring of the concrete, the re-bar being laid down and welded and the actual construction of what we're to see.

That's exactly why I was looking forward to the prequels. I just haven't been wowed by their execution.

Quote:
It's supposed to look and sound different, because they're setting up the main story. And for all the comlaints that ep 1 was too kid friendly and ep 2 was kind of a transition film, I'm sure that if recent quotes by Lucas about the darkness of ep 3 are true, then the fanboys will finally shut up.

It could be true. My main question in that case would be...why wait until the third movie to deliver something with an authentic, gritty feel like the OT? Frankly the trailers for the first two instalments got me very excited about them, but the movies couldn't deliver. The trailers for the third instalment are similarly great. If they could make movies as thrilling as the trailers I would be very happy. The third episode looks like it has everything that I was interested in seeing in the first place. I never asked to see elementary school Anakin. I never asked to see whiney teen Anakin. I wanted to see hero Anakin, the cunning and respected warrior and the best star pilot in all the galaxy (have we seen him pilot ANYTHING since he was 8 by the way?). And I wanted to see how the universe went to pot. Hopefully this will all be delivered in episode 3.

Quote:
Also, I think it's really a generational thing.

Well told stories are not generational. They're timeless. People still watch and enjoy "It's a Wonderful Life" and "The Wizard of Oz".

Quote:
A generation raised by video games, Prozac, cheap anime and grunge music would obviously cotten more to the goings on of Neo and Co. than to the relic of the 70's. I guess that now the MATRIX has gone bust, than STAR WARS will have the last laugh.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the current generation. But then the previous generation ridiculed OUR generation for being into Star Wars. I don't buy the generational gap thing. It feels like an easy cop out to simply paint an entire population with one brush. If you and I can see things this differently on this one forum then you cannot account for the entire spectrum of audience out there.

Quote:
Also, the hype and anticipation for PHANTOM MENACE was unparalleled in the annals of film history. 22 years of build-up and suspense. No movie could top that. You might as well have bought tickets to the second coming of Christ while you were at it.

I think all that was expected was a good experience. Some people got this while others felt ambivalent or alienated. It could be argued that Spider-Man is as big of a franchise world wide and the film was just as long coming and anticipated. And both films so far are more entertaining than the prequels. The LotR trilogy holds a similar responsibility and while heavily (and IMO necessarily) altered from book form they make a fine collection of films. I mean in Return of the King we're talking about a genre film that practically SWEPT the Academy Awards here.

Quote:
Hey, FIREFLY and practically every sci-fi show or movie of the last 27 years or so owes a debt to STAR WARS. So how about we give it due respect and creedence.

While true on some levels, this is pretty much irrelevant to how we should receive the Prequels as entities on their own. It's possible to respect the technical achievments of Lucasfilm and ILM and THX without letting that get in the way of deciding whether we think The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones represent good storytelling.

Quote:
Or am I the only one who actually likes these.

Of course not. And I myself don't hate them. I just think a lot could have been done differently to make them more enjoyable in my eyes. Even looking at an animated film like The Incredibles, I see the type of character development and acting and excitement I wish I was feeling during the Prequels.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:43 PM

CALHOUN

The first 2 prequels SUCKED! I dont hold much hope for the third.. but heres hoping.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:02 PM

BENCHCOAT

qualifier first: I don't hate the new movies, etc. etc.

that being said, I do hate the "midichloran," the force is carried by organisms that live in the blood, too. I agree that taking that approach to the Force makes the jedi into an elite group by the nature of their birth, and not something that anyone could aspire to acheive.

The kid in Ep 2 did do a great job of selling me on the idea that he could be Luke's father. and while some people found it silly, fighting Yoda was great!

author David Brin has some interesting essays on his website on the new Star Wars movies (the first originally ran in Salon a few years back), which while very critical, are well thought out and raise interesting points. he managed to put his finger on what bothered me the most about Ep. 1--it didn't have a main character that really fit the role of the hero. I'll also admit that, while I think he can be harsh, I liked that Brin also enjoyed the Luke and the Emporer's face-off in RotJ didn't matter in the ultimate battle to defeat the Empire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:03 PM

BENCHCOAT

forgot to add the link:

http://www.davidbrin.com/starwarsarticle1.html

for Brin's Star Wars articles

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 7:17 PM