# The Problem with Star Wars



## The Serge (Mar 12, 2005)

I was thinking on some of the comments made on another _Star Wars_ thread...  Namely about the acting and directing.  Particularly about Hayden Christensen.

I think Hayden Christiansen is a fine actor.  I think that most of the principals in the film are fine actors.  I think the problem is we have an inept and incompetent director/writer who dominates the entire process and does not take suggestion well.  Lucas is a great conceptualist.  He has good ideas and creates great foundations.  However, it's his execution that stinks which is why he needs others involved in the creative process.  The fact most recognize _The Empire Strikes Back_ as the best of the three original SW flicks is a testament to that fact.  Lucas had the least direct control over that film compared to the others. 

When one honestly compares PM and AotC to ANH and RotJ, I honestly believe that there's not much of a real difference beyond the impact of something new and fresh and something twice baked.  ANH has the benefit of being the first of its kind; the other three are rehash.  So...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 12, 2005)

The problem with Star Wars is as much the fans as anything. Calling Lucas inept and incompetent as a writer/director is just plain stupid. He has a very unique style. He is NOT the best, but he isn't inept OR incompetent.

The problem is as much that many of us have grown up and remember Star Wars as something that Lucas doesn't see it as. He writes perfectly for the style. The problem is looking at Star Wars in a way that it was not intended. Star Wars is supposed to be the classic Saturday Matinee type movie. Cheesy, stilted dialogue, quick romances that only happen because the plot says so, and fairly flat characters.

All of these complaints that are said about the movies usually ignore this, and like it or not, the execution of the movies is perfect for the style which Lucas wants to create. 

But considering this discussion is as old as the prequels themselves and beaten to undeath, this isn't going to get anywhere new. Lines are drawn, you either like it or you don't. There's nothing wrong with NOT liking the new movies or how Lucas does things, but every single Star Wars topic does not need to constantly go down these same lines. Some of us are enjoying these movies, and if we were in the minority, these movies wouldn't still be making the kind of money they do.


----------



## CrusaderX (Mar 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> The problem is looking at Star Wars in a way that it was not intended. Star Wars is supposed to be the classic Saturday Matinee type movie. Cheesy, stilted dialogue, quick romances that only happen because the plot says so, and fairly flat characters.




I agree, to a point.  Star Wars is the ultimate "B" movie (though it also features mythic themes and awesome special effects) and it's not really meant to be much more.  People who view the OT as more than that are really missing the point of these films, IMO.

Having said that, if the OT were "B" movies, the prequels are "C" level at best.  The OT may have had cheesy, stilted dialogue, but the OT contains some of the most memorable movie quotes of all time.

Does anyone remember _any_ cool or memorable quotes from the prequels?  

The OT was flawed, but it packed in alot of memorable charm.  There's not much charm in these prequels.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 12, 2005)

> The problem with Star Wars is as much the fans as anything. Calling Lucas inept and incompetent as a writer/director is just plain stupid. He has a very unique style. He is NOT the best, but he isn't inept OR incompetent.
> 
> The problem is as much that many of us have grown up and remember Star Wars as something that Lucas doesn't see it as. He writes perfectly for the style. The problem is looking at Star Wars in a way that it was not intended. Star Wars is supposed to be the classic Saturday Matinee type movie. Cheesy, stilted dialogue, quick romances that only happen because the plot says so, and fairly flat characters.




Did you read my entire post?  I never mentioned not like or liking the films.  I mention that the general problem with the films lies in the level of control Lucas has over them.

I also think that to chalk up the results in ANH, RotJ, TPH, and AotC to being based upon a Saturday serial is a cop out.  TESB doesn't have the same level of flaws, doesn't have the same stilted dialogue, the same poor acting, the same flat characters as the other films...  At least not to the same degree.  One can even see the attraction between Solo and Leia as making some kind of sense.

There's no reason to defend the indefensible just because one enjoys the films.  I happen to own and enjoy watching all of the films.  This does not mean that I'm blind to the flaws they contain.  Defending the indefensible is, to use your words, "just plain stupid."


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 12, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember _any_ cool or memorable quotes from the prequels?




"Are you threatening me, Master Jedi?"

Sure, that's from the Revenge of the Sith trailer, but its perfect and right up there with everything from the OT...except "I am your father", nothing can ever match that one. Though hearing Obi-Wan scream "You were the Chosen One!" had a very serious power to it, also.

None Episode III memorable quotes...well, you're right that there aren't many, though I'd say Darth Maul's "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi...at last we will have revenge." is memorable. Maybe only because its Darth Maul, though. 



> The OT was flawed, but it packed in alot of memorable charm.  There's not much charm in these prequels.




Thing is, at least some of that charm comes with age.



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> TESB doesn't have the same level of flaws, doesn't have the same stilted dialogue, the same poor acting, the same flat characters as the other films... At least not to the same degree.




Would you be amazed to hear that there are some on these very boards that said those things were worse in Empire than in the others? Search is down so I can't really help with that, but it has been said by more than one poster.



> There's no reason to defend the indefensible just because one enjoys the films. I happen to own and enjoy watching all of the films. This does not mean that I'm blind to the flaws they contain. Defending the indefensible is, to use your words, "just plain stupid."




If there's no point in defending it, then what's the point in attacking it? Do you just not want anyone disagreeing with you? Am I THAT different as a Star Wars fan to actually defend what I feel should be defended?


----------



## Crothian (Mar 12, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> There's no reason to defend the indefensible just because one enjoys the films.  I happen to own and enjoy watching all of the films.  This does not mean that I'm blind to the flaws they contain.  Defending the indefensible is, to use your words, "just plain stupid."




Nothing is indefensible on the world wide web.  And saying that they all Saturday serials is not a cop out, it is understanding what the films are.


----------



## GSHamster (Mar 12, 2005)

I think that the old movies were...simpler.  I mean compare the end sequence between ANH and TPM.  ANH basically has one battle on which all the focus resides, which is won through skill, faith and the action of the heroes. TPM has four battles, two of which are won through incompetence.

Secondly, I think the new movies are missing the 'Han Solo' element.  Everything is too serious (Jedi) or too comic (Jar-Jar).  I miss the random sniping between Leia and Han.  You could make the case that the old movies had a lot of understated humour (in addition to the slapstick of 3PO), which is sorely missing in the new movies.

So that's what I think. The new movies are overly complex and lack much of the humour that was charming in the first ones.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> The problem with Star Wars is as much the fans as anything. Calling Lucas inept and incompetent as a writer/director is just plain stupid. He has a very unique style. He is NOT the best, but he isn't inept OR incompetent.



Actually, yes, he really is inept and incompetent, at least in the specifics of screenwriting, dialogue, directing and editing.


			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> The problem is as much that many of us have grown up and remember Star Wars as something that Lucas doesn't see it as. He writes perfectly for the style. The problem is looking at Star Wars in a way that it was not intended. Star Wars is supposed to be the classic Saturday Matinee type movie. Cheesy, stilted dialogue, quick romances that only happen because the plot says so, and fairly flat characters.



That's just flat out wrong and insulting to all of us to tell us we don't even know what the movies are about.  As a point of fact, I've (and most fans) have always seen the movies as a remake of serial type movies.  Only lately, Lucas would kinda disagree with you, and claim that they were about Joseph Campbell's theories of the Heroic Journey and modern mythology.  Hogwash.  To add to Lucas' other flaws, he's now become insufferably pretentious. :\ 


			
				AMG said:
			
		

> All of these complaints that are said about the movies usually ignore this, and like it or not, the execution of the movies is perfect for the style which Lucas wants to create.



No, they're not.  Good serials had good dialogue, memorable and interesting characters with depth and good pacing.  The Star Wars prequels really drop the ball on developing any of those.  It's not impossible to see the strength of the concept and story shining through the horribly amateurish execution, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the execution is really bad.


			
				AMG said:
			
		

> But considering this discussion is as old as the prequels themselves and beaten to undeath, this isn't going to get anywhere new. Lines are drawn, you either like it or you don't. There's nothing wrong with NOT liking the new movies or how Lucas does things, but every single Star Wars topic does not need to constantly go down these same lines. Some of us are enjoying these movies, and if we were in the minority, these movies wouldn't still be making the kind of money they do.



No, every topic does not.  *This* topic was specifically started to go down those same lines.  If it bothers you so much, don't come in an rain on everyone else's parade.  The reason these discussions are popular is because we're _fans_ of Star Wars after all.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Mar 12, 2005)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> I think that the old movies were...simpler.  I mean compare the end sequence between ANH and TPM.  ANH basically has one battle on which all the focus resides, which is won through skill, faith and the action of the heroes. TPM has four battles, two of which are won through incompetence.
> 
> Secondly, I think the new movies are missing the 'Han Solo' element.  Everything is too serious (Jedi) or too comic (Jar-Jar).  I miss the random sniping between Leia and Han.  You could make the case that the old movies had a lot of understated humour (in addition to the slapstick of 3PO), which is sorely missing in the new movies.
> 
> So that's what I think. The new movies are overly complex and lack much of the humour that was charming in the first ones.



 I think you've nailed part of the problem with the new movies.  The chemistry between the characters AND the actors just falls flat compared the the personal interactions of Luke, Leia, and Han.  The actors clicked like crazy, even when they weren't delivering lines.  And the characters themselves had a fantastic dynamic in the way they interacted.  The characters in the new movies just..  don't gel in that same way.  I don't think it's a problem with the actors' quality, maybe the casting didn't have the same care as the original (where they were tested as groups to make sure they were a cohesive and engaging group).

Of course, I think Lucas has gone senile in his writing too, but that's another point altogether.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 12, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, he really is inept and incompetent, at least in the specifics of screenwriting, dialogue, directing and editing.




I'm not sure how exactly this can be argued one way or another. Then again, I'm not really of the belief that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to write dialogue, etc. And really, I see directing and editing in the same way. There are different STYLES, yes, but a right and wrong? No way. Lucas has a very unique style, and I've never said he was the best director.

Of course, if he was inept and incompetent, A New Hope would never have done as well as it did and we wouldn't be having this discussion today. Obviously, he's doing something write as people still go and see the movies, even if many(myself included) come back from them with complaints. If he was really so inept, even the Star Wars name wouldn't be able to save it.



> That's just flat out wrong and insulting to all of us to tell us we don't even know what the movies are about.  As a point of fact, I've (and most fans) have always seen the movies as a remake of serial type movies.  Only lately, Lucas would kinda disagree with you, and claim that they were about Joseph Campbell's theories of the Heroic Journey and modern mythology.  Hogwash.  To add to Lucas' other flaws, he's now become insufferably pretentious. :\




I didn't say that everyone didn't know what the movies were about. And if I did, then that isn't exactly what I meant. A better way of putting it is that many people lose sight of what its about when complaining about dialogue, etc.

Of course, you're right in that it seems like there's been a shift in Lucas' 'excuses'. While its obvious the whole Joseph Cambell thing has been there from the beginning, I haven't really heard Lucas touting that until lately. Can't help but wonder why, though it doesn't really matter to me that much. Besides, what's wrong with Lucas having flaws? Its not like the rest of us are perfect and can make perfect movies.



> No, they're not.  Good serials had good dialogue, memorable and interesting characters with depth and good pacing.  The Star Wars prequels really drop the ball on developing any of those.  It's not impossible to see the strength of the concept and story shining through the horribly amateurish execution, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the execution is really bad.




I won't disagree that the execution isn't as great as it could have been, but its still very good. Like I've said, if it WASN'T, people wouldn't keep seeing these movies. There wouldn't be legions of fans that camp out for these movies every time they release, or anything similar. His execution isn't PERFECT, but there's definitely something being done right.

Especially considering that most Star Wars fans are fairly set on having it the 'right' way, me included. 



> No, every topic does not.  *This* topic was specifically started to go down those same lines.  If it bothers you so much, don't come in an rain on everyone else's parade.  The reason these discussions are popular is because we're _fans_ of Star Wars after all.




True, but is it really raining on a parade if the rain has started already? Is it so bad that I feel the need to present the other point of view?

And on another note, I definitely agree that the lack of a Han-like character is a big hit to the PT. They could really have used some good sarcastic humour beyond the few instances its in there.


----------



## Wombat (Mar 12, 2005)

I have a highly heretical opinion about where Star Wars went wrong that I love to promolgate.

Where did things go wrong?  With _The Empire Strikes Back_.

Weird, right?  I mean, universally this is seen as the best of all the Star Wars films.  But bear with me while I explain things.  

_Star Wars_ (or _A New Hope_ for you young whippersnappers) was a popcorn-eating, saturday matinee hero film.  It had cheesy acting, whizbang special effects, Good Guys, Bad Guys, and a good amount of action; don't try to make too much sense out of it -- the Good Guys won and that is all that matters!  Wheee!

And then came ESB.

This film had much better scripting, much better acting/directing, even better special effects, a darker, more serious tone, and strung in strong mythological elements.  Yes, these are all the things we love, but you see none of these were really present (aside from the special effects, to a point) in ANH.  ESB raised the bar to an amazingly high level!  Star Wars was now a new _mythology _for us!  People started claiming to practice The Force.  This wasn't some cheezee little saturday matinee piece of fluff, this was EPIC.

And so we waited breathlessly for future enstallments to further up the ante.

Instead, we go ewoks.

If you take ESB out of the mix, what you have is a collection of questionably scripted, poorly acted/directed films with whizbang special effects that would be great for a saturday matinee and some fun for us geeks to talk about on the boards.  And that would be about it.  But by adding ESB to the mix people (even non-geeks) assumed there was Something Much More to the series.  Since there _isn't _Something Much More, they are disappointed.  

So, sadly, it would have been in the best interest of the series if ESB had been on the same quality level as the other four scripts to date in the series.  Then it would have been a nice little franchise, but nothing amazing and people wouldn't be talking about whether Episode III (or as I call it "Episode 6") would be The One That Turns It Around.  Instead Star Wars would be what it us -- fun popcorn fair, but not much more.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Mar 12, 2005)

There is no Harrison Ford-like actor that grabs the movie by the scruff of the neck and makes it happen. What we have are a bunch of actors that effectively are Lucus' yes men.

There is also no real sense of Sith strength such as what we get in ESB. There is no major military defeat, main good guy getting frozen or sneaky Darth capturing everyone with ease. Instead we get a whiny Jedi, comic book Yoda fight scene and Ja Ja Binks.

Give me real actors with charisma, decent dialogue, less blatant CGI and no Lucus!


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 12, 2005)

In a way, I think of the original _Star Wars_ trilogy as something of a phenomenon.  It combined sci-fi, fantasy, cutting-edge graphics, spirituality, romance, and action in a unique way that allowed the whole to transcend the sum of its parts.

Was the acting in the original trilogy fantastic?  Not really.
Was the story of the original trilogy deep and complex?  Not really.

Only the effects were truly breathtaking back then.  And yet, somehow Lucas took these disparate parts and created something greater than any of the pieces warranted.

Now, he's trying to continue on in that vein, but it's been too long, and the lightning simply hasn't struck a second time.  Just like before, he's tossed a bunch of odds and ends into the melting pot--the midichlorians, the Devil in Darth Maul (as opposed to Darth Vader's Death), more crazy hairdos, more silly kiddy aliens, and as before...incredible special effects.

It's not Lucas' fault he couldn't produce another miracle.  I still appreciate him for the original trilogy.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 12, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> In a way, I think of the original _Star Wars_ trilogy as something of a phenomenon.  It combined sci-fi, fantasy, cutting-edge graphics, spirituality, romance, and action in a unique way that allowed the whole to transcend the sum of its parts.
> 
> Was the acting in the original trilogy fantastic?  Not really.
> Was the story of the original trilogy deep and complex?  Not really.
> ...




I agree that it has been too long. Lucas's skills as a director have clearly atrophied. When he was making Star Wars, he was a relatively neophyte director fresh of a huge success with American Graffiti. His vision both about what a movie could be and technical skill in seeing the project through while inventing new special effects technologies were breathtaking. He and his crew had to be really innovative.
Now, he's something of a cultural institution and the technology has really advanced so that there is, I think, less really creative innovation and more incremental evolution. There's no one to say no to him and tell him an idea needs rewriting or reworking. The technology of computer generated characters is reasonably mature so he's no longer on much of a cutting edge.
There were some things in PM that worked reasonably well. The light saber duel was quite excellent. Some of the themes touched on between Anakin and his mother and the others were nice and had potential for exploration. Clones pretty much threw all of that away, as I see it.
The current trilogy should have some pretty good potential. For one thing, most of the principle actors are higher quality than the actors of the first trilogy. Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, Ewan MacGregor. But Lucas has never been known as a great director for getting the best performance out of actors. He's the kind of director who does have some good ideas, especially visual on scene composition, but he's also the kind of director who needs someone else to work with. 
The biggest disappointment for me is how, if you notice, everything in this 2nd trilogy is bigger and better. The Jedi seem to be able to do just about anything, Anakin could do much more at a young age than his son apparently could at any age. It's like Lucas is trying to one-up himself on this trilogy over his last one. It's like the Japanese director in Lost in Translation who tells Bill Murray "Same thing, with more... intensity."


----------



## reanjr (Mar 12, 2005)

The problem with Star Wars is that Lucas is a twit.  To my knowledge, he'e never been involved with anything approaching decent without the help of Ron Howard or Steven Spielberg (both of whom could make any twit's movie into a masterpiece).


----------



## Goobermunch (Mar 12, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember _any_ cool or memorable quotes from the prequels?




"Wipe them out, all of them."

Whenever I'm thinking in my BBEG mode, that line reverberates in my mind.  That's when I know it's time for a TPK.

--G


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 12, 2005)

Actually, I think George Lucas just can't win - no matter what he does, he could never surpass the original movies, because they have taken on an almost mythological sheen.

That said, I thought the Phantom Menace was pretty bad. I did like Attack of the Clones a lot. I think Lucas shook off most his rust. He realized he needed to dump Jar Jar, and added a bunch of great actors, both well known (Samuel L Jackson, Christopher Lee) and not (the guy who played Jango Fett)

Also, I've seen a lot of old serials (Zombies Stratusphere, Masked Marvel, etc, etc). I have yet to see one that actually featured good acting and dialogue. Most are pretty dorky.  

And they also cheat. They always end on a cliffhanger, but then in the next episode, things are slightly different, and thus less deadly.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 12, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> The problem with Star Wars is that Lucas is a twit.  To my knowledge, he'e never been involved with anything approaching decent without the help of Ron Howard or Steven Spielberg (both of whom could make any twit's movie into a masterpiece).



Ron Howard would have been casted as Luke Skywalker instead of Mark Hamill.

And _ROTJ,_ directed by Steven Spielberg, is not exactly my favorite of the three OT. Funny enough, _TESB_ which was directed by George Lucas for the most part, is the best of the three OT.

But I think he's been away from directing too long, simply because he decided to set up a premiere yet independent special effects studio that many films and TV series have benefited from, including _Star Trek._ If you ask me, that's a good thing, despite neglecting his directing skill.


----------



## somekindofjerk (Mar 12, 2005)

> As a point of fact, I've (and most fans) have always seen the movies as a remake of serial type movies. Only lately, Lucas would kinda disagree with you, and claim that they were about Joseph Campbell's theories of the Heroic Journey and modern mythology. Hogwash. To add to Lucas' other flaws, he's now become insufferably pretentious.



This is a big part of it right here. Back in the day, the Hero of a Thousand Faces ideas weren't the the focus of the films. Lucas incorporated alot of the ideas with some twists (i.e the father and the villin being the same person) because it resonates with audiences when you follow the pattern of half of western mythology, but at the end of the day the bottom line was cheesey fun. Lucas and others seem a bit hung-up on these thematic elements, and thus perceives the OT as something more than what is. This manifests as the new films lacking "heart," which is why I believe there are fewer memorable lines and why much of the humor feels forced. In the fans this manifests as disappoinment in the new films when held up against the built-up perception of the original films.



> I have yet to see one that actually featured good acting and dialogue. Most are pretty dorky.





> Good serials had good dialogue, memorable and interesting characters with depth and good pacing. The Star Wars prequels really drop the ball on developing any of those.



I'd rather say the dialogue in old serials was dry. Not flowery, but it got the job done. The dialogue in the OT wasn't the best written, but it didn't tout itself as Grapes of Wrath.  I think what happened is that as the scope of the movies grew more intentionally epic, someone--be it Lucas or whoever--thought that the dialogue's level of complexity had to be as well.



> There is no Harrison Ford-like actor that grabs the movie by the scruff of the neck and makes it happen.



Agreed. We're missing the cynical, seen-it-all-already wise-guy. It seems all the characters are the playing the straight-man.

Now, that being said: I'm not trying to insult the fanbase. I loved the original trilogy. Disliked Menace--the focus of my ire being Anakin the moppet and Jar-Jar, though I will say that Jar-Jar instilled in me a greater appreciation for the ewoks. Liked Clones better, including comic-book Yoda (after he lifted the X-wing I just _knew_ that he could totally flip out and not even care back in the day). I'm no film expert, and thus the views and opinions expressed herein are meant for entertainment purposes only. End of line.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Would you be amazed to hear that there are some on these very boards that said those things were worse in Empire than in the others? Search is down so I can't really help with that, but it has been said by more than one poster.



No, I would not be surprised.  I've read some of those posts.  However, among those interested in the subject matter (as well as among film critics), the general consensus is that _The Empire Strikes Back_ is the strongest of the Star Wars films.  This parallels the general consensus that _Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menance,_ and _Attack of the Clones_ possess some serious flaws when it comes to acting, dialogue, and overall story telling.  



> If there's no point in defending it, then what's the point in attacking it? Do you just not want anyone disagreeing with you? Am I THAT different as a Star Wars fan to actually defend what I feel should be defended?



Perhaps I selected my words poorly.  However, I still believe that any Star Wars fan (a designation I assume with pride) can still recognize and be annoyed with the flaws in the films as a whole.  It's like recognizing that while I love John Williams, there are arguably more proficient composers out there.  I love Star Wars, but this doesn't mean that there are some serious flaws and that those flaws are due to Lucas' incompetence as a director and storyteller.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 12, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, every topic does not.  *This* topic was specifically started to go down those same lines.  If it bothers you so much, don't come in an rain on everyone else's parade.  The reason these discussions are popular is because we're _fans_ of Star Wars after all.



I suppose I'm to blame for not indicating in my original post that the purpose of this conversation was not necessarily to slam Star Wars as a whole, but to point out that most of the problems for the franchise can be laid at the feet of the man responsible for its success.

I will agree with Ankh-Morpork Guard on the part that fans are partially to blame for our reaction to Star Wars.  There really isn't much of a difference in the nature of most of the movies beyond the newness of ANH and the fact that our expectations as movie goers before 1983 weren't as high. Furthermore, our society has turned SW into a cultural event. Over 20 years have passed, allowing us to build these films up to be monumental achievements. To be sure, they were monumental technical achievements and paved the way for successful sci-fi features. But, as stories and acting go, only TESB is truly successful. ANH has some lousy acting from everyone save Ford and... Well, that's it; Guiness wasn't bad, but certainly nothing to brag home about. RotJ is essentially a rehash of the first film. Aside from the stuff with Jabba the Hutt, there's very little that's really good about this film. We go back to a Death Star; we're introduced to ridiculous ewoks; we don't really see a fantastic final light sabre duel; the conflict Vader faces seems forced; we never learn how Luke became so powerful... and never see that power reflected (I'm sorry, but a side-kick doesn't speak power to me). I could go on. When one measures these films against TPM and AotC, the only thing they have over those films is tighter editing, freshness, and a heaping of steaming nostalgia dumped on them. And I'm just as bad. I love ANH. But, I'm willing to admit that, when it's all said and done, there's no real difference between these new features and the old ones.

Lucas doesn't know how to capture the human element and doesn't know how to capture drama. He does know how to create a strong story foundation, but that's the extent of it. He needs other people to get in there and work it out. That's why TESB was a success well beyond the other films to date.

Let's hope that Lucas has truly learned most of his lesson with Episode III. Clearly, he hasn't learned everything since he's still directing, but let's pray that he let someone come in and rewrite the script.


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 12, 2005)

Scripts and direction were my main problems with the first two prequel films, as well.  I agree on most points -- if I could go back in time and warn Lucas that he might want to have someone help him with these areas I would.  But ... we have what we have.  The true test will be Episode III.  If he can nail it, I think I can forgive him a couple of lackluster movies.  

That said, it is very easy for us to armchair quarterback these films.


----------



## smootrk (Mar 12, 2005)

Constant comparisons to the old B movies, or old westerns does not justify poor quality acting and direction.  

I am hoping that George has learned a bit from the poor quality overall "Phantom", and the much improved (but still quite flawed) "Clones".  Despite the flaws, I still enjoyed being entertained by the movies he has created and I will likely enjoy watching the return of Darth Vader.


----------



## smootrk (Mar 12, 2005)

BTW.  It is my understanding that the reason for the bad acting in the movies has nothing to do with the story itself.  Lucas keeps the actors from understanding the story, plot, and motivations of the characters by keeping secret scripts, false scripts, scripts that have all the dialog out of order, etc.  How can actors give a good performance when they are left in the dark about the story, much less fully deceived by the director, just to keep the story arc secret from the general population.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 12, 2005)

I think my problems with PM, AotC and maybe (hopefully not) RotS all come down to one thing: the interaction of Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan.  I think it is writing directing, and possibly even acting, but somehow it just does not come together.  As a result I just don't feel like I care about these characters other for the fact that I know Anakin becomes Vader, Padme bears Luke and Leia, and Obi-Wan will eventually be the one to start Luke on his destined path.  Somehow I found I really cared about Luke, Leia and Han in the first (as in first made) three films.  The interactions between them made some sense - sure it was movie sense, but it was believable.  

In PM, we got an Anakin who was the Boxy on the original Battlestar Galactica, or Wesley on Star Trek TNG.  Characters I couldn't quite believe in, and just kind of annoyed me.  Obi-Wan and Padme had a lot of potential in the first film, but the way they had to interact with Anakin just got in the way.  Jump to AotC and now you get the angst-ridden annoying teenager, who for some reason Padme falls in love with and Obi-Wan feels strong loyalty towards (OK, the trailer for RotS explains the last a bit with Obi-Wan crying out "You were the chosen one!").  Padme goes from caring about Anakin, kind of like a big sister in PM, to suddenly falling in love with him, but we cannot see why.

If I had my way, Anakin would have started out in PM as a teenager. The romance would have just barely started there, a teenage crush kind of thing.  They meet again in AotC as adults and things blossom.  Anakin would have not been a whiny teenager who really starts on the path to the dark side because he cannot do as he pleases, but instead been an adult who starts down the path because be starts to believe that he can do more and be more for the Jedi, for Padme for the Republic if he has more power.  He justifies all this in his head to start and slowly becomes more and more corrupted.  I think this would have created a character that generated more symapthy and would have added more tragedy to the fall of Anakin.  Of course nobody asked me what I thought and, like many people my hindsight better than my foresight


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 12, 2005)

smootrk said:
			
		

> BTW.  It is my understanding that the reason for the bad acting in the movies has nothing to do with the story itself.  Lucas keeps the actors from understanding the story, plot, and motivations of the characters by keeping secret scripts, false scripts, scripts that have all the dialog out of order, etc.  How can actors give a good performance when they are left in the dark about the story, much less fully deceived by the director, just to keep the story arc secret from the general population.




That's an interesting theory.


----------



## smootrk (Mar 12, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> That's an interesting theory.




Not so much a theory.  Many of the actors including Liam and Samuel were interviewed and hinted at the difficulty with acting out little tidbits of scenes completely out of order and without interaction with some of the other actors who shared the scene (as seen in the final cut).  If you want to visualize an example of this, just watch carefully the scene in Phantom where they are all sitting around the table having a conversation about 'helping others'.  Watch how choppy the dialog and the characters mannerisms are.  Either shot out of sequence or just plain old bad editing.

The actors even had private meetings where they tried to piece their individual scripts together to try to figure out where the plot was going.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 12, 2005)

Constants in Star Wars production:
A combination of neophyte actors and REALLY good ones.
Poor direction

Difference between OT and PT with regard to this:
The OT great actors were officially slumming it and could afford to relax and have fun, and the new kids weren't burdened with "oh, my god!  I'm working on STAR WARS."

Of course, Sam Jackson and Ewan McGregor are going to be taking things much more seriously than Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness.  Cushing and Guinness were making a popcorn movie for this eccentric little man with big, silly glasses.  Jackson and McGregor have to live up to the EPIC movies of their own childhoods and cope with LUCAS, the independent "artist."

Another key change in the nature of the Star Wars universe:
In 1976, a young rebel filmmaker who had trouble getting money to make his strange movies made a movie about the Rebellion against an Evil Empire.

In 1999, a man who is himself an institution made a movie about the dissolution of a government, including trade disputes and massive bureaucracy.

Arguments about the likability of the characters and their level of snarkiness aside, that's a pretty big difference.


----------



## Krieg (Mar 12, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Funny enough, _TESB_ which was directed by George Lucas for the most part, is the best of the three OT.




Umm The Empire Strikes Back was directed by Irvin Kershner. It is the film that Lucas had the _least_ directorial input on.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 12, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Another key change in the nature of the Star Wars universe:
> In 1976, a young rebel filmmaker who had trouble getting money to make his strange movies made a movie about the Rebellion against an Evil Empire.
> 
> In 1999, a man who is himself an institution made a movie about the dissolution of a government, including trade disputes and massive bureaucracy.




See, that's what I think makes the difference: the OT was a simple story, the PT is COMPLICATED. The OT evolved (from the adventures of Starkiller), the PT has to build.


----------



## Villano (Mar 12, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's like the Japanese director in Lost in Translation who tells Bill Murray "Same thing, with more... intensity."




Didn't actors in the original series say that Lucas' direction was simply to say, "Faster, more intense"?  

That reminds me of another director, whose name escapes me, who used to say, "Just like that, only better."  

Anyway, I have to agree that Lucas is ironically the weakest element of the new films.  I think it's a combination of not being a "people director", being secretive, and, frankly, not having anyone around him to say that something is a bad idea.

It's kind of like the Austin Powers movies.  The first one was good and did well, so Mike Myers was given free reign on the next.  All the jokes went on too long and he included his ad libs.  No one could tell him that having Fat Bastard singing the Chilli's theme song for 2 minutes isn't funny.  

Same thing with Lucas.  No one could tell him that Anakin in TPM was a bad actor.


----------



## jeffh (Mar 12, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Umm The Empire Strikes Back was directed by Irvin Kershner. It is the film that Lucas had the _least_ directorial input on.




Actually, *every *factual claim in Ranger Reg's post was wrong; the biggest wasn't even the one you pointed out, it was his saying Spielberg had anything to do with RotJ (he had no involvement in any of the SW movies, including that one).

It was so wrong he pretty much _must _have been doing it on purpose, as some sort of joke, though personally I don't see what's supposed to be funny about it..


----------



## The Serge (Mar 12, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I think my problems with PM, AotC and maybe (hopefully not) RotS all come down to one thing: the interaction of Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan.




It's funny you say this because I wrote something very similar to this before.  This gets back to Lucas' inability to understand human motivation in these films.  Even in _A New Hope_, we can see what motivates Luke.  He's a young adult (what?  18?) who _knows_ (like most of us at that age) that we're made for something better in spite of what our ignorant parents think.  He has the added weight of knowing that his father was someone great who died a long time ago.  The audience can connect with this.  Hell, the audience can connect with all of the mythological motifs in the first film (I don't know if Lucas did this intentionally or not, but they are present... painfully so).

In the new films, however, Lucas botches the human element _completely_.  He also clutters his great story foundation through self-inflicted sabatoge.  In _The Phantom Menance_ alone, we see what could have been... Hell, we see what was there but ruined due to Lucas' inability to delegate.  Lucas should have hired writers and directors who know how to capture those elements and integrate them into the larger story.  The crux of the story is a young boy, a child of prophecy who, due to the ignorance and willfullness of one man, is dragged from the only home he knows and is slowly corrupted by a galaxy for which he's underprepared.  The second protagonist is a queen who parallels the boy in that she, while wise beyond her years, is not prepared for the viciousness of the truly evil people and realities around her; she's forced to grow up quickly and make sacrifices.  This parallel between the two should have been used to explain why this young boy is drawn to the queen and why she -- witlessly -- finds herself interested in the welfare of this boy (if handled properly, this would have been a sibling relationship, not some sort of weird sexual thing).  

Simultaneously, we would have had the revelation of a complacent Jedi Order that has grown comfortable in its status, unaware of and perhaps uninterested in the cancer growing right before them.  We would have seen how politics and money have led to an entire galaxy unwilling to make tough choices while injustice is rampant.  While the two principals (and arguably three if Obi Wan was handled better) are forced to mature (and in two different directions if done right), we see a society regressing and declining, but unaware of it, leaving it ripe for manipulation by someone using the same elements the Jedi have abandoned in their complacency to get what he wants.  The movie, although truly about Anakin, Padme, and maybe Obi Wan, is named _The Phantom Menace_; we needed to see more of this menace, come closer to understanding what is exactly at stake.  How does the military and economic conquest play into this menace's hands?  We never know if this was a ploy that would lead to Palpatine's ascension (which makes Darth Sideous' desire to kill Padme very odd) or if there was another plot that was jettisoned after the failure in Naboo.

Of course, Lucas never figures out how to make these things work because he doesn't know how to capture the human elements, doesn't know how to extend the metaphor into the greater parts of the narrative, and doesn't know how to motivate his actors.  He does know how to market toys and tie-ins, so we get plenty wasted minutes of fx that do _nothing_ to promote the story.

It's all about the story.  Lucas has it right there, but fails to execute.  I truly hope that he gets it right this time.  Sure, I'll end up liking _Revenge of the Sith_ just as I like RotJ, TPM and AotC, but I want to love it like I love _The Empire Strikes Back_ and most of _A New Hope._


----------



## Krieg (Mar 13, 2005)

The bottom line for me is pretty simple.

1. The original films were _fun_ (from the standpoint of a viewer).
2. The new films (so far) aren't.

All of the convolated apoletics that the films are crappy because they're supposed to be (because their source material was after all crappy), or that they're really for kids, or that we just don't get it...or worst of all blaming the fans for not liking the films because they had the audacity to *gasp* expect something actually worthwhile is mind boggling to me.

The new films are shiny and pretty and absolutely lack any substance. Great visuals are wonderful, but they are meaningless if in the end you don't care about the characters.

So far for me the original trilogies are essentially junk food of the worst sort...empty calories.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 13, 2005)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Actually, *every *factual claim in Ranger Reg's post was wrong; the biggest wasn't even the one you pointed out, it was his saying Spielberg had anything to do with RotJ (he had no involvement in any of the SW movies, including that one).
> 
> It was so wrong he pretty much _must _have been doing it on purpose, as some sort of joke, though personally I don't see what's supposed to be funny about it..



Heh.  I was about to post the same thing.  Possibly he's mistaking _Jedi_ for _Raiders_?  I dunno.  Either way, it's an extremely odd post.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 13, 2005)

I'm not a Star Wars fan. There I said it. Working for Wizards in the Star Wars fan club for two years taught me that Star Wars fans are a bunch of whining snivelling brats who waste entirely too much brainpower second guessing films they had nothing to do with. Its as though Lucas owes them something by virtue of the fact that he entertained them with some great films almost thirty years ago. The only thing Star Wars fans like better than complaining about the super rare action figures and collectibles they can't seem to get their hands on is complaining about how much the movies disappointed them. Nevertheless, these ones who whined about the new movies are the same people (literally the same people, I followed enough of their accounts) who rush out and buy the newest prequel action figures, keychains, commemorative convention passes, and Queen Amidala hairpieces. The only thing worse than a Star Wars fan complaining about the latest round of movies is a Star Wars fan ticked off because they missed the boat on a hot new collectible that's now sold out. Next to Star Wars fans, roleplayers are a sheer pleasure to deal with (which makes the people who have so far participated in this discussion exempt from my rant since you pretty much must play D&D if you hang out at this site). I think that no matter what Lucas delivered with the prequels, they would not have lived up to the expectations of the majority of Star Wars' most vocal fans.

Like I said, I don't consider myself a "fan." I'm embarrassed by Star Wars fans and I feel dirty for just having had to put up with their whininess day after day, day in and day out. On the other hand, Star Wars is a part of my life that shaped who I am from an early age. I first saw A New Hope when I was five years old. I've caught every other movie in the series, including both the prequels, on their opening day. I was so starved for some Star Wars when Phantom Menace came out that I went to the theater and watched it eight times that summer, despite the fact that there were some definite elements that I wasn't crazy about (Jar Jar Binks). 

Although neither of the prequels rank among the best movies I've ever seen, they both have their moments. Every scene with Darth Maul really worked for me. If they would have had more Maul and less Jar Jar, I probably would have been completely happy with ep I. Episode II does away with Jar Jar for the most part and gives C-3P0 a bigger part, which I felt was a temendous improvement. The only real problems I have with Ep II is that is drags a bit in the middle and Anakin comes across as pretty wooden. One thing that occurred to me about Anakin is that I could actually see Vader delivering some of the lines in the same way young Anakin does, so maybe Hayden was directed to deliver his lines in the way he did to provide some consistency to his character. I'm not saying that it worked, but its a thought. Bottom line though, I find Ep II very watchable and entertaining despite its faults. Phantom Menace might be worth viewing once a year when the alternative is gnawing off my own arm out of sheer boredom.

As for midichlorians, yes they do quantify the force, but they still aren't an explanation for it. They're attracted to people who are strong with the force, but they are not the force. I can forgive Lucas on this, but only barely.

I agree that Lucas probably could have used some help with the first two prequels. There were portions of both movies that were just unnecessary and really dragged on. There should be more chemistry between the actors. In fact, the story of how Anakin was found by the jedi could have easily been condensed into a fifteen to thirty minute portion at the beginning of what became EP II rather than being its own movie. I would imagine that an entire movie set during the clone wars might have been more entertaining. The question isn't whether or not Lucas knows how to tell a good story, but whether Lucas is telling the _right_ story.


----------



## Krieg (Mar 13, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm not a Star Wars fan.




Then it is probably time to find a new avatar.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 13, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> The problem is as much that many of us have grown up and remember Star Wars as something that Lucas doesn't see it as. He writes perfectly for the style. The problem is looking at Star Wars in a way that it was not intended. Star Wars is supposed to be the classic Saturday Matinee type movie. Cheesy, stilted dialogue, quick romances that only happen because the plot says so, and fairly flat characters.




Actually, the problem is that Lucas has forgotten this.

Look at the plots for the first three movies:

1. Bad guys make superweapon and try to destroy good guys, good guys fight back.
2. Bad guys hunt fleeing good guys. Martial arts master trains student.
3. Bad guys try to make superweapon, good guys destroy it.

Compare that the to convoluted and overcomplicated plots of the next two movies. Now the movies are about trade policy disputes, and political infighting in a galactic senate and council meetings, boring poltical discussions between "lovers", and so on. The first movies were swashbuckling space opera because the simplicity of the plot lett them be, the new movies have so much chaff in the way that there is no room to have adventure.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Compare that the to convoluted and overcomplicated plots of the next two movies. Now the movies are about trade policy disputes, and political infighting in a galactic senate and council meetings, boring poltical discussions between "lovers", and so on. The first movies were swashbuckling space opera because the simplicity of the plot lett them be, the new movies have so much chaff in the way that there is no room to have adventure.




I believe that's what I said, but nice detail. 

Even when I saw it, I thought the "love story" between Anakin and Padme was poor.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 13, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Even when I saw it, I thought the "love story" between Anakin and Padme was poor.



"Poor" is an understatement.  There are few worse ways that storyline could have been carried out.  I liked AotC.  I thought Obi-wan's subplot was great.  I liked the bad guys.  They were actual villains as opposed to that one-dimensional hackery they called Darth Maul.  The visuals and action sequences were fantastic.  The love story, however, was abysmal.  He seemed like he was going for some kind of Victorian forbidden love, and missing completely.  Combine that with a total lack of chemistry between the leads, and a stalkerish performance out of Hayden (who did just fine in scenes where he didn't need to interact "romantically" with Portman), and you get one of the worst love stories ever put to film.

It should have been the core of the movie.  Instead it's like the film equivalent of the nasty, indigestible cob on which sweet, sweet corn clings.

And this is from someone who really likes that movie a lot.  Sweet corn makes up for grievous sins, I guess.


----------



## Stone Angel (Mar 13, 2005)

Well Lucas himself had said that he forgot how to make movies. But I think the biggest reason that people feel the movies are lacking compared to the first trilogy is that it wasn't new like the 4,5, and 6 were. I mean they blew a lot of peoples minds kind of like the first Matrix. You had to sit back and say "Woah". That is an incomparable feeling. The prequels had to compete with that.

And even though I feel like the prequels are superior in almost every way besides story i.e visually, action, fx and even gives it a run for their money in the talent department I also feel that these movies feel so serious compared to the others maybe it that is supposed to be the mood but even as dark and hopeless the originals were they were always light and refreshed with humor from time to time. 

Just a couple credits for my thoughts.


The Seraph of Earth and Stone


----------



## evildmguy (Mar 13, 2005)

I remember this old Archie comic from years ago. It was a simple statement how asking four people their opinion about a movie got four different answers. (And, of course, Jughead's was about the popcorn not the movie.) Reading through this thread reminded me of that even more. 

I think that everyone is right.  We are all different from when Star Wars first came out and our expectations are very different.  

I think the world is different now.  When I watch most current tv shows or movies, I don't think they waste a second.  There never seems to be a point where I can talk because missing anything will mean I missed something important.  However, thirty years ago, it seemed as if that wasn't the case.  There were vast tracts of some (not all, but most) tv shows or movies where it was "easy" to talk because it was obvious nothing important to the plot was happening.  Star Wars is that way for me.  The first ten minutes are so visual that no matter how much I like the soundtrack, I can talk and others will respond and we don't feel as if we are missing anything.  So, I think Star Wars had to "adapt" to the current style of movies that we have today.  And, in that, I think they did lose a lot of the themes of the movie, which others have said better than I.  

However, I still like 'em.  I like them for what they are.  I might nit pick them at time, but overall, I still enjoy watching them.  And that, for me, is the most important thing.  

Good points all!

Have a good one!  Take care!  

edg


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 13, 2005)

It seems like I might be the only Star Wars fan that doesn't care for the story in the movies, good or bad, it gives nothing to me. I don't dislike it and I don't like it. The only thing I get out of the movies is additional background to deepen my appreciation of the setting that _*I*_ experience _in the Star Wars CRPGs and FPSs_.

So to me, the problem with Star Wars (IMO) is there is too much effort put into the movies. 


Regards,
Eric Anondson


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 13, 2005)

evildmguy said:
			
		

> However, I still like 'em.  I like them for what they are.  I might nit pick them at time, but overall, I still enjoy watching them.  And that, for me, is the most important thing.
> 
> Good points all!




Good point, yourself! That was beautiful.


----------



## Orius (Mar 14, 2005)

jeffh said:
			
		

> Actually, *every *factual claim in Ranger Reg's post was wrong; the biggest wasn't even the one you pointed out, it was his saying Spielberg had anything to do with RotJ (he had no involvement in any of the SW movies, including that one).
> 
> It was so wrong he pretty much _must _have been doing it on purpose, as some sort of joke, though personally I don't see what's supposed to be funny about it..




Yeah, I'm pretty sure Ranger knows every single "fact" in his post is totally wrong.  Not sure what the point is myself.   Maybe it's his way of saying that a lot of people who rant on the net prove just how much they *don't* know with the content of the rant.


----------



## Orius (Mar 14, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember _any_ cool or memorable quotes from the prequels?




Here's my nominations:

TPM:
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent." Qui-Gon to Jar-Jar  
"No one can kill a Jedi."  Anakin Skywalker (love the irony).
"Anakin Skywalker, meet Obi-Wan Kenobi."  Nothing else really needs to be said here.
"We will watch your career with great interest."  Palpatine to Anakin.

AotC:
"You don't want to sell me death sticks." That was a fun little scene.
"Go back to your drinks, this is Jedi business."  Yeah, sounds cheesy and kind of out of place, but a fun line anyway.

None from Sith, yet, because I've only seen the trailers.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 14, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Its as though Lucas owes [Star Wars Fans] something by virtue of the fact that he entertained them with some great films almost thirty years ago.




I realize that this is going to sound weird comming from someone who's handle is fanboy, but you've hit upon the very thing I hate about fandom. I hate the idea that corporations/entertainers/writers/artists owe the fans anything. Really, is it that hard to buy what you want and not buy what you don't want? Do fans really need to whine about every other thread?

That said, I love movies and I like threads like this because it can be fun to discuss when people aren't resorting to calling filmakers incompetent. (I just came back from a film festival, I've seen incompetence and it ain't Lucas.)


----------



## Vocenoctum (Mar 14, 2005)

main line I liked, and I can't recall the exact wording. In AotC
"Someday you'll be the death of me Anakin."


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 14, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Then it is probably time to find a new avatar.




No, I think I'll keep this one.


----------



## Pbartender (Mar 14, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> "Poor" is an understatement.  There are few worse ways that storyline could have been carried out.  I liked AotC.  I thought Obi-wan's subplot was great.  I liked the bad guys.  They were actual villains as opposed to that one-dimensional hackery they called Darth Maul.  The visuals and action sequences were fantastic.  The love story, however, was abysmal.  He seemed like he was going for some kind of Victorian forbidden love, and missing completely.  Combine that with a total lack of chemistry between the leads, and a stalkerish performance out of Hayden (who did just fine in scenes where he didn't need to interact "romantically" with Portman), and you get one of the worst love stories ever put to film.




I picked up a slightly used copy of the AotC DVD a while back.  I quickly discovered that I liked that movie a lot more than I thought I did.  You see, I've gotten into the habit, whenever I watch it, of hitting the 'skip forward' button on the remote every time there's scene featuring Anakin and Padme together and alone.

Cut the creepy love story and the resultlant idealistic politico pillow talk, and it's a really good movie.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Mar 14, 2005)

There is also the uh.. 'cut' line from EpIII (first seen in someone's sig):

"Hello. My name is Boba Fett. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

But I'm fond of:

You call this a diplomatic solution? (Anakin)
No, I call it an aggressive negotiation. (Padme)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 14, 2005)

I love all of the Star Wars movies.  I think they are ALL good.  Strange, huh?  I don't believe the prequels are noticably worse than the OT.

Yes, there are elements in nearly every movie that aren't the greatest.  Luke being way too whiney all the time, cheesy dialog from almost every character in every movie, the queasiness that comes to mind when I realize that Luke was lusting after his sister for an entire movie, Luke overacting, (NOO!!  You're not my father!!) being unable to understand Jar Jar properly so most of his humour was lost, poor execution in explaining the story correctly, and the romantic scenes in AoTC.

Now, I may be weird or something in that I hold no ill will for Ewoks, Jar Jar, and that RoTJ is my favorite movie (Although it is in a close war with AoTC).  To me Star Wars has always been about cool fight scenes with blaster bolts flying, fast paced action, and once I had seen RoTJ about the use of cool force powers.  I just love the idea of people commanding others with the force, deflecting blaster bolts, throwing around parts of the wall, jumping really high.  I love magic and cool powers.  To me, that's what Star Wars is about anyways.  That and cheesy dialogue.

So in that vain.  Someone asked for it...lines that stick out in my head as truely classic.  I know, because I'm that guy who can't stop quoting Star Wars movies during inapporpriate moments and ones from the prequels that have entered my vocabulary are:

TPM:
"You're right master, the negotiations WERE short"
"Wipe them out.  ALL of them"
"The ability to speak does not make one intelligent"
"Greed can be a powerful ally"
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"
"Yousa not-a thinking yousa better than the Gungans.....Meesa like dis"

AoTC:
"You want to go home and rethink your life"
"If a system is not listed in the Jedi archives, then it doesn't exist"
"You call this a diplomatic solution?"  "No, I call it agressive negotiations"

There's more from AoTC, but I haven't seen it in a while and my brain hurts right now.

Still, I suggest enjoying the movies for what they are.  I prefer the attitude of "Star Wars comes from Lucas, whatever Lucas gives us IS Star Wars.  I can either like Star Wars or I can rant about how it isn't MY Star Wars."  I prefer the former.  I love every moment of it and wouldn't trade it for anything else.  As a side note, something for everything to think about:  I organized about 14 friends to see TPM when it first came out, got into the 3 am show.  When we came out, basically we had 13 out of 14 people saying how great the movie was ano how unbelievable it was.  Then all of them talked to their other friends and got online and started discussing it.  The general opinion amongst everyone else was that the movie was a horrible perversion of Star Wars and Lucas didn't deserve to live for creating it.  2 weeks later, I was being shunned by all of my friends who had changed their mind and decided they agreed with everyone else and that I was an idiot for liking a crappy movie.


----------



## Rayndeon (Mar 14, 2005)

Nuclear Platypus said:
			
		

> There is also the uh.. 'cut' line from EpIII (first seen in someone's sig):
> 
> "Hello. My name is Boba Fett. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
> 
> But I'm fond of:




A little Inigo Montoya action? (The Princess Bride by Simon Morgenstern)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 14, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> As a side note, something for everything to think about:  I organized about 14 friends to see TPM when it first came out, got into the 3 am show.  When we came out, basically we had 13 out of 14 people saying how great the movie was ano how unbelievable it was.  Then all of them talked to their other friends and got online and started discussing it.  The general opinion amongst everyone else was that the movie was a horrible perversion of Star Wars and Lucas didn't deserve to live for creating it.  2 weeks later, I was being shunned by all of my friends who had changed their mind and decided they agreed with everyone else and that I was an idiot for liking a crappy movie.



My first viewing of TPM was pretty much the same, right down to the number of people.  I had fewer with me for AotC, if only because a lot of the original crew had scattered all over the country, but the same thing happened.  We all walked out of the theater saying, "That rocked!"  With just a couple people saying, "Yes, except for the love story."  Incidentally, my fiancee and I were the ones saying that.  2 weeks later, my fiancee and I were the only ones who weren't vilifying Lucas and ranting about its craptasticy.  Groupthink?  Power of the media?  I don't know.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 14, 2005)

evildmguy said:
			
		

> I think the world is different now.  When I watch most current tv shows or movies, I don't think they waste a second.  There never seems to be a point where I can talk because missing anything will mean I missed something important.  However, thirty years ago, it seemed as if that wasn't the case.  There were vast tracts of some (not all, but most) tv shows or movies where it was "easy" to talk because it was obvious nothing important to the plot was happening.  Star Wars is that way for me.  The first ten minutes are so visual that no matter how much I like the soundtrack, I can talk and others will respond and we don't feel as if we are missing anything.  So, I think Star Wars had to "adapt" to the current style of movies that we have today.  And, in that, I think they did lose a lot of the themes of the movie, which others have said better than I.



That's an ironic observation, since the Star Wars movies have generally been credited with _creating_ that whole fast-paced summer blockbuster formula in the first place.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 14, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> My first viewing of TPM was pretty much the same, right down to the number of people.  I had fewer with me for AotC, if only because a lot of the original crew had scattered all over the country, but the same thing happened.  We all walked out of the theater saying, "That rocked!"  With just a couple people saying, "Yes, except for the love story."  Incidentally, my fiancee and I were the ones saying that.  2 weeks later, my fiancee and I were the only ones who weren't vilifying Lucas and ranting about its craptasticy.  Groupthink?  Power of the media?  I don't know.




It might also be longer reflection taking over after the blush of the first impression wears off. 

I was vaguely dissatisfied with Menace. And now my vague feelings are considerably more concrete in my mind after several more viewings on DVD. Hey, if you have kids in the house, you'll end up with them on DVD even if you personally don't like the movies much.

My first impression of Clones as I walked out of the theater was that it was better than Menace. Having watched it a few more times, I firmly believe that it is, by far, the weakest of the Star Wars movies for a number of reasons.

Sometimes, it just take a little time to really evaluate a movie and make up a long-lasting opinion of it.


----------



## Empress (Mar 14, 2005)

Oops, forgot the quote 


> That's an ironic observation, since the Star Wars movies have generally been credited with creating that whole fast-paced summer blockbuster formula in the first place.




Together with Jaws. 

But it became a formula only because of the massive financial success. Indeed, this was when studios took note that there was a lot, and I mean a *lot*, of money to be made in movies. After Star Wars and Jaws swept multiplexes, popcorn movies became a summer staple.

That's one of the interesting and paradox notions about the 70's. It gave birth to movies so good, so imaginative and so succesful that it led to an ever-increasing stream of copycats. In a way, the era of free filmmaking and powerful directors directly caused our times of limited creativity and powerful studios.

You still can't blame the movies back then; it's just a shame that the only directors that still have that freedom, the same directors that had the freedom back then (save for a handful of exemptions like Peter Jackson, at most), utilize that freedom to produce the same crap as everyone.

I mean, George Lucas is probably the most powerful filmmaker of the world (maybe except for Kim Jong-Il). Not only would he be allowed to do anything he wanted, he would also be able to finance it, and to produce the movie all by himself (utilizing his companies's staff, of course). That's the biggest disappointment I feel with regards to Star Wars. Lucas could have tried to revolutionize storytelling and filmmaking, and instead he chose to go the pedestrian route.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 14, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> My first viewing of TPM was pretty much the same, right down to the number of people. I had fewer with me for AotC, if only because a lot of the original crew had scattered all over the country, but the same thing happened. We all walked out of the theater saying, "That rocked!" With just a couple people saying, "Yes, except for the love story." Incidentally, my fiancee and I were the ones saying that. 2 weeks later, my fiancee and I were the only ones who weren't vilifying Lucas and ranting about its craptasticy. Groupthink? Power of the media? I don't know.




My experience was that I hated TPM the first time I saw it.  Then my sister wanted to see it and drug me with her.  I liked it better.  What I discovered was that part of what defines a Star Wars to me is having seen it 100+ times and knowing everything that's going to happen.  Therefore, seeing TPM a second time made it feel more "right".

That said, I've still only seen TPM twice and AotC once.  I wouldn't mind seeing AotC again, though.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 14, 2005)

Empress said:
			
		

> I mean, George Lucas is probably the most powerful filmmaker of the world (maybe except for Kim Jong-Il). Not only would he be allowed to do anything he wanted, he would also be able to finance it, and to produce the movie all by himself (utilizing his companies's staff, of course). That's the biggest disappointment I feel with regards to Star Wars. Lucas could have tried to revolutionize storytelling and filmmaking, and instead he chose to go the pedestrian route.



For what it's worth, I saw him briefly somewhere the other night (ET, maybe?) and he said that after _Sith_ he wants to go back and make small movies of a completely different kind.  Star Wars was the unexpected 30 year detour for him, and now he says he can afford to fail financially making whatever the hell he wants.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 14, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I saw him briefly somewhere the other night (ET, maybe?) and he said that after _Sith_ he wants to go back and make small movies of a completely different kind.  Star Wars was the unexpected 30 year detour for him, and now he says he can afford to fail financially making whatever the hell he wants.



 That was on 60 Minutes last night. 

And with RotS behind him, the main story for SW is over. Anakin's tale will be told completely and that's really what the whole thing has been about. Of course, that doesn't mean SW will be gone...there is that TV Show coming.


----------



## Henry (Mar 14, 2005)

> Star Wars was the unexpected 30 year detour for him, and now he says he can afford to fail financially making whatever the hell he wants.




If anything, this will be to me the greatest legacy of the Star Wars films. Lucas, when making something for the heck of it, can turn out some movies that have no cultural worth, but are some genuinely fun movies to watch. Dammit, I LIKED HOWARD THE DUCK!  When Lucas is not trying hard, is when he's at his best.

As for AotC and Phantom Menace, I enjoyed them - not as much as the originals mind you, but I still enjoyed them for the spectacle of it. I often said, and still do, that Phantom Menace was worth it for the 20 minutes of lightsaber battles alone. On a psychological level, yes I suppose Menace and Clones DID fail to be "the greatest story ever told to Star Wars Fans", but then, that's not why I watched it. My wife knew nothing of Star Wars, but was curious, so I watched the three original movies with her. I didn't ask her to watch Episode 1 or 2; they weren't what was the best of the series, she didn't care to see them, and I didn't care if she didn't. She saw the best of them, IMO, so why bother?  I watch all six because I am a SW geek, plain and simple, and whether Luke is struggling with his heritage, or whether Jar Jar is nabbing fruit with his tongue, I'm watching because it's _fun._

Whatever happened to people "vegging out" with Star Wars they way they do with other action films?


----------



## Ishamael (Mar 14, 2005)

I love Starwars...at least...I did...before the internet killed it...


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 14, 2005)

Ishamael said:
			
		

> I love Starwars...at least...I did...before the internet killed it...




You and me both.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 14, 2005)

The Internet killed the video star...
The Internet killed the video star...


----------



## Crothian (Mar 15, 2005)

Ishamael said:
			
		

> I love Starwars...at least...I did...before the internet killed it...




The internet didn't kill it, it was the "fans"


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 15, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The internet didn't kill it, it was the "fans"



 Stupid fans are supposed to keep places cool and comfortable, too...whatever happened to that, eh?


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Mar 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I saw him briefly somewhere the other night (ET, maybe?) and he said that after _Sith_ he wants to go back and make small movies of a completely different kind.  Star Wars was the unexpected 30 year detour for him, and now he says he can afford to fail financially making whatever the hell he wants.




Yeah, I saw that on 60 minutes... really, if you judge him by his pre-Star Wars work, it looked as if Lucas was going to be an arteur director of a rather Kubrick-esque stripe... it seems like he's decided that's what he wants to do with his golden years.  I look forward to what he comes up with...


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 15, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Cut the creepy love story and the resultlant idealistic politico pillow talk, and it's a really good movie.




It's a real pity that the IMAX cut didn't make it to the DVD.  That cut out most of the "Stalker Anakin" stuff from AotC so it could be under two hours.

Hrm...I wonder if Ep3 will make it to IMAX?  That'd rock.

Brad


----------



## Empress (Mar 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I saw him briefly somewhere the other night (ET, maybe?) and he said that after _Sith_ he wants to go back and make small movies of a completely different kind.  Star Wars was the unexpected 30 year detour for him, and now he says he can afford to fail financially making whatever the hell he wants.



 But that's the point, isn't it? Why doesn't he make a big special effects art movie extravaganza. He'd be the one director who could do it.

Why not make a Star Wars movie about what it means to be a hero, what it means to fail as a hero, and whether failure may be something a hero should be prepared to do in order to succeed? Give us Anakin as a young Jedi blossoming into a hero in part 1 (destroying the trade ship on purpose). Then have him be under pressure of delivering more and more acts of greatness - he's the Chosen One, after all, and maybe the strongest Jedi that ever lived - and confide in Padme. Let him be tired, subdued by his masters's expectations. And the only way to fulfill their expectations, the only way to become the greatest Jedi, the only way to make his dead mother proud, is to learn powers other Jedi are afraid of. To learn the powers of the Dark Side. Anakin is the Chosen One. He might be able to control its corrupting influence. He might be able to unite the Dark Side and the Light side. That is what he was chosen to do.

And then he fails.

I would have wanted Lucas to do something equally aspiring. I don't particularly dislike the movies he made, I'm just pining for what could have been.


----------



## Aris Dragonborn (Mar 15, 2005)

Quote: "Why do I get the feeling that someday you're going to be the death of me?" - Obi Wan to Anakin as they enter the cantina while chasing the changeling.  

For me, TPM was a let-down - initially. Repeated viewings seemed to improve the experience, but it still seemed as if something was wrong.....

And then, one day, I realized that I had been watching the movies from the perspective of the original trilogy, and that wasn't going to work. The original trilogy was set in a "dark time for the galaxy", where the Emperor ruled absolutely, the Jedi were non-existent, and no one had the courage or the strength to rise up against the Empire. No one, that is, until that fateful day when a Corellian smuggler took on a charter consisting of an old man, a farmboy, and their two droids....

The Prequels, on the other hand, depict a universe that, while on the decline, is still a much happier place than it would be in the future. Slavery is virtually non-existent (except in the Outer Rim territories), and non-humans had as much freedom. The Jedi were a force (no pun intended) for peace and justice throughout the galaxy, and were generally held in high regard (unless you were a criminal, that is). Sadly, the corruption of the government only hastened the Republic's decline. Things were looking up when a greatly respected senator form Naboo was elected Chancellor.........Looking up, that is, until a headstrong Jedi Master and his Padawan found a young boy who seemed to possess tremendous force-potential, and took him to be tested and eventually trained at the Jedi Temple.

It's not so much the movies, I think, as it is how we're viewing them. To expect them to be the same type of movies as the origianl trilogy is a mistake. The plot of the origianal trilogy was swashbuckling/pulp in nature, where good and evil were clearly defined; the prequels are more intrigue/noir, where nothing is as it seems.

Just enjoy the Prequels for what they are: Star Wars movies.


----------



## jasper (Mar 15, 2005)

No the Jedi were arrogant weenies. Bring a sword to gun fight. Works only if you are very very very good. What I hated was sfx when you could have story? Did we need a ping pong Yoda Gummi Bear boucing around the scenery? It would have been better is the 2 foot guy fought the 6 foot with both feet on the ground.
Too much eye candy not enough peace.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 15, 2005)

Empress said:
			
		

> I don't particularly dislike the movies he made, I'm just pining for what could have been.



My position on the movies exactly.  Although even then, I don't think the stories that they do tell are unsalvagable, it's more the execution of them that stinks.  Anakin as a little boy in TPM automatically means that chemistry with Natalie Portman is going to go out the window.  Ponderous, unnatural dialogue will bring even the best story down, as will uneven pacing and focusing too much on drawn-out "emotional" scenes that aren't.

It's kinda sad, in a way, when the new Star Wars movies aren't as good as recent Star Wars video games like _Knights of the Old Republic_ 1 and 2.

I'm still quite excited about RotS, just as I was about AotC and tPM, but their legacy will be nothing like the OT, when they really should have been.  All these claims that "the Internet" or "the fans" have killed Star Wars are preposterous, as are claims that "we're just not appreciating the Star Wars movies for what they are."  Face it; the Star Wars prequels just had some serious flaws.  They weren't nearly as strong as the OT.  I didn't have unreasonable expectations of the movies; after all, you don't see my griping about _Return of the Jedi_, do you?  I think my expectations of the movies were actually quite reasonable, and I would have been in a mood to be quite forgiving of flaws in the movies, but they _still_ didn't meet even my lowered expectations.

I agree with Henry that tPM is worth it for the lightsaber battle alone, but it's pretty sad that I really can't watch the movie anymore without skipping ahead to the lightsaber battle and missing most of the rest of it.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 15, 2005)

Aris Dragonborn said:
			
		

> Just enjoy the Prequels for what they are: Star Wars movies.



Good points, in all.

I have never expected the greatness of A New Hope or Empire Strikes Back in the prequels.  That is unfair.  Those 2 films are 2 of the best ever put to screen and I'm not just talking about genre films.  Yes, there have been a few misteps and some things that just sucked.  I like what I read in Empress' post and that would have been another way to go.  After reading the novel of tPM, the movie was a little harder to swollow (loved it when it came out and still like it overall).  Kid Anakin in the films was for the most part, corny.  He didn't ruin it but the version in the book was much more "Anakin" to me.

[SPOILERS for the book ahead] That version had him going on personal adventures before he ever met the Jedi.  He survived the Dune Sea and befriended one of the sand people.  We got that he was a great pilot from the movie but it was too kid-like.  Having fate, not Anakin, destroy the droid control ship hurt his story.  Or at least the way it was shown.  Could be the actor or the director - I'm not sure.  But that was tPM and it is one of the weaker films of the 5 we've seen.

Also, the tone (as mentioned) was a little jarring.  But things need to start off lighter before you can get to the crushing darkness that needs to be Episode III - the film that needs to be the darkest of the 6, or barring that at least as dark and depressing as ESB.  It's not an excuse as I can see why Lucas went the route of showing young Anakin.  It wasn't just to show him but to show a different era: a period before the Dark Times, before the Empire.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 15, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> It's not an excuse as I can see why Lucas went the route of showing young Anakin. It wasn't just to show him but to show a different era: a period before the Dark Times, before the Empire.




May be the reason tPM featured Lil' Anie (aka Tiny Vader, aka Dark Lord of the Napkin, ...) was that Lucas thought that young kids could relate to that character, and therefore like the movie better.

This thinking is flawed from the beginnig, though - it nearly never works that way. Young kids don't dream about being heroic young kids; they dream about being heroic adults. (Btw, that's the reason why nearly every superhero comic featuring kids failed miserably.)




			
				jasper said:
			
		

> Did we need a ping pong Yoda Gummi Bear boucing around the scenery?



Yes.


----------



## Berandor (Mar 15, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> May be the reason tPM featured Lil' Anie (aka Tiny Vader, aka Dark Lord of the Napkin, ...) was that Lucas thought that young kids could relate to that character, and therefore like the movie better.
> 
> This thinking is flawed from the beginnig, though - it nearly never works that way. Young kids don't dream about being heroic young kids; they dream about being heroic adults. (Btw, that's the reason why nearly every superhero comic featuring kids failed miserably.)



Except for Superfriends!



> Yes.



No.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 15, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> May be the reason tPM featured Lil' Anie (aka Tiny Vader, aka Dark Lord of the Napkin, ...) was that Lucas thought that young kids could relate to that character, and therefore like the movie better.
> 
> This thinking is flawed from the beginnig, though - it nearly never works that way. Young kids don't dream about being heroic young kids; they dream about being heroic adults. (Btw, that's the reason why nearly every superhero comic featuring kids failed miserably.)



Although that flies in the face of the logic on the success of Harry Potter, though.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 15, 2005)

Aris Dragonborn said:
			
		

> The plot of the origianal trilogy was swashbuckling/pulp in nature, where good and evil were clearly defined; the prequels are more intrigue/noir, where nothing is as it seems.



This actually is what bothered me most about tPM.  _Everything_ is _exactly_ as it seems.  There's no "phantom menace" at all.  Every villain is clearly defined.  There is absolutely zero subtlety in the plot at all.  Every line Palpatine delivers is filled with evil design, regardless of whether he's wearing his Emperor outfit or not.  And when Yoda asks in the end whether the apprentice or the master was killed, there's absolutely no question that the apprentice was the one who got whacked.

Like Empress, my disappointment wasn't with the movies themselves.  I loved the lightsaber battles in tPM and in AotC.  They're decent popcorn flicks.  But I can see so much wasted potential.  Why not give me a Palpatine that might actually _be_ a good guy in the first movie?  Make me wonder whether Palpatine is already evil, or whether _he_ is being corrupted by _Maul_.

And speaking of Darth Maul...what a waste of a great character design.  When the new trilogy was first announced, I didn't think Lucas could create a villainous image as striking and symbolically powerful as Darth Vader.  Then comes Darth Maul, and I'm pleasantly surprised.  The Devil to Vader's Death.  The imagery was powerful, the potential symbolism impressive.  And then the character is wasted in a cheap death, and we get Count Dooku, the old guy with a bent lightsaber...?!  _*sigh*_


			
				jasper said:
			
		

> Did we need a ping pong Yoda Gummi Bear boucing around the scenery? It would have been better is the 2 foot guy fought the 6 foot with both feet on the ground.



When I first heard of the Yoda fight before the movie came out, I originally envisioned Yoda merely standing in place, with one (or more) lightsabers whirling around him, wielded by nothing more than Yoda's mind.  That Yoda had such precise control over the force that, unlike others, he could actually saber-duel using the Force as his hands.

But I didn't mind the way they went with it.  Yoda on Gummy Berry Juice was entertaining in its own way.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 15, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> This actually is what bothered me most about tPM.  _Everything_ is _exactly_ as it seems.  There's no "phantom menace" at all.  Every villain is clearly defined.  There is absolutely zero subtlety in the plot at all.  Every line Palpatine delivers is filled with evil design, regardless of whether he's wearing his Emperor outfit or not.  And when Yoda asks in the end whether the apprentice or the master was killed, there's absolutely no question that the apprentice was the one who got whacked.




You would be surprised how many non-fans I know who STILL have no idea Palpatine is Sidious.  I just explained it AGAIN the other day when one of the undergrads in my lab was watching the trailer and freaked out when he saw Palpy charge Mace and his little posse.



> And speaking of Darth Maul...what a waste of a great character design.  When the new trilogy was first announced, I didn't think Lucas could create a villainous image as striking and symbolically powerful as Darth Vader.  Then comes Darth Maul, and I'm pleasantly surprised.  The Devil to Vader's Death.  The imagery was powerful, the potential symbolism impressive.  And then the character is wasted in a cheap death, and we get Count Dooku, the old guy with a bent lightsaber...?!  _*sigh*_



"...the character _design_ is wasted in a cheap death"
Fixed that for you.   There was an interesting character design, but no character there to speak of.  And as for Dooku.... blasphemy!  I was thrilled to see an ACTUAL villain in the apprentice role instead of style over substance.

Plus, the sword-fights with him did a much better job of looking like someone who knew what he was doing.  That asinine double-lightsaber was the second worst idea in TPM.



> When I first heard of the Yoda fight before the movie came out, I originally envisioned Yoda merely standing in place, with one (or more) lightsabers whirling around him, wielded by nothing more than Yoda's mind.  That Yoda had such precise control over the force that, unlike others, he could actually saber-duel using the Force as his hands.



It is, however, dramatically useless.  It is impossible to lose such a fight.  Without the constraint of a body hooked to the sword, it can slip around any attack instantly and end the fight in about 1/4 of a second.

Besides, I find it to be of dubious coolness.  Using the Force to propel his 800+ year old body into battle is cool, even if I dislike some aspects of the execution.  Personally, I think they should have spent some more time studying the couple of Kali and Silat masters who are about 4'8".  How those guys fight a tall opponent is freakin' cool.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 15, 2005)

Aris Dragonborn said:
			
		

> For me, TPM was a let-down - initially. Repeated viewings seemed to improve the experience, but it still seemed as if something was wrong.....
> 
> And then, one day, I realized that I had been watching the movies from the perspective of the original trilogy, and that wasn't going to work. The original trilogy was set in a "dark time for the galaxy", where the Emperor ruled absolutely, the Jedi were non-existent, and no one had the courage or the strength to rise up against the Empire. No one, that is, until that fateful day when a Corellian smuggler took on a charter consisting of an old man, a farmboy, and their two droids....
> 
> The Prequels, on the other hand, depict a universe that, while on the decline, is still a much happier place than it would be in the future. Slavery is virtually non-existent (except in the Outer Rim territories), and non-humans had as much freedom. The Jedi were a force (no pun intended) for peace and justice throughout the galaxy, and were generally held in high regard (unless you were a criminal, that is). Sadly, the corruption of the government only hastened the Republic's decline. Things were looking up when a greatly respected senator form Naboo was elected Chancellor.........Looking up, that is, until a headstrong Jedi Master and his Padawan found a young boy who seemed to possess tremendous force-potential, and took him to be tested and eventually trained at the Jedi Temple.




I'm going to agree with you to a point. When I went back and watched AotC recently, it struck me that the period Lucas was showing in many ways mirrored our own history at the beginning of World War I. At that time, people believed that society as a whole was enlightened and striving towards great progress (the reality may not have reflected this, but idealistic socialites rarely concern themselves with the plight of the working folk who put money in their pockets). Industrialization was seen as a good thing, and no one even conceived of the horror that would be WWI, WWII, or the nuclear bomb. Going into WWI, people thought they would go out, fight their enemy, and be home by supper. It was the first modern war, and it was more terrible than anything they had ever seen before. There was a definite naivety on the part of almost everyone involved, and had they known that it would become an extremely costly war of attrition, both warring alliances would probably have worked out a peaceful solution. I think that there are some definite parallels between that period and the period in the prequels. 

In addition to this, Lucas definitely wanted to show how Palpatine did not steal his power, it was willingly given to him. Its a commentary on how governments work, and how people are ruled. Lucas has a pretty good grasp of Machiavellian thought when it comes right down to it, and should serve as a cautionary allegory for what might happen in the free countries of the real world.

While the political aspects of the story are not nearly as entertaining as the swashbuckling of the original trilogy, it does setup the back story upon which the original was built. Lucas himself said that the reason he started with IV, V, and VI was because he felt that they were more a entertaining story. Given that this is what he thought in the beginning, it should come as no surprise that the prequels aren't being received as well as they could be. He just isn't telling the same type of story.

Despite this, I agree that he could have done a better job with the directing, the pacing, and the characterizations. Jar Jar and pod racing ruined TPM for me (as if the title itself wasn't bad enough), and there were some story elements that probably should have been scrutinized a bit before being committed to film. All in all, they're OK movies that could have been better, but they also could have been far, far worse.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 15, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> In addition to this, Lucas definitely wanted to show how Palpatine did not steal his power, it was willingly given to him. Its a commentary on how governments work, and how people are ruled. Lucas has a pretty good grasp of Machiavellian thought when it comes right down to it, and should serve as a cautionary allegory for what might happen in the free countries of the real world.



Rather a mirror of what did happen to the Weimar Republic in the 30s.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Palpatine's official rank in the government is Chancellor; the same as Hitler's.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, he really is inept and incompetent, at least in the specifics of screenwriting, dialogue, directing and editing.




The proof is in the pudding - and the pudding he's created is among the best loved of all genre films.  Darned hard to call that "incompetence".  Mind you, I avoid the school of critique that claims that quality can be measured without reference to the audience.

Don't confuse "incompetent" with "some folks don't like it" or "doesn't fit my pet criteria".  True incompentence shows in the abysmal failure of the products it produces.  In the movie marketplace, his films have not generally been failures.  Ergo, as a practical matter, he's not incompetent. 



			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> I think the problem is we have an inept and incompetent director/writer who dominates the entire process and does not take suggestion well.




I think the problem we have is that the films are designed (intentionally or not) for a young audience, and folks critique it as if it is designed for a mature audience.  



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> While its obvious the whole Joseph Cambell thing has been there from the beginning, I haven't really heard Lucas touting that until lately.




Well, I remember hearing Lucas' touting of the Campbell thing back in... oh, 1989, when I first encountered Campbell.  15 years ago isn't "just lately".


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 15, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The proof is in the pudding - and the pudding he's created is among the best loved of all genre films.  Darned hard to call that "incompetence".  Mind you, I avoid the school of critique that claims that quality can be measured without reference to the audience.



Yes, the original trilogy.  The newer movies have been markedly less successful financially, even in absolute terms, to say nothing of normalizing to take into account inflation.  It seems much more likely that the newer films are coasting on the success of the franchise rather than that their relatively more limited success is evidence of competent film-making.  Of course, I never claimed that he was completely incompetent; some success can also be attributed to his visuals, special effects, etc., and I've said all along that the stories themselves aren't bad.  Being incompetent in a few areas doesn't equate to being completely incompetent across the board, and a movie can float on it's strengths to a certain extent despite incompetent handling of other areas.  And looking at the financial results of the Star Wars prequels, I'd say that's exactly what's happened; they've floated on the strengths of 1) franchise, 2) special effects, 3) decent story, 4) halfway decent characters, and 5) cultural impetus, yet have spectacularly failed to achieve the same success as the original movies due to the incompetent handling of dialogue, directing and editing (i.e., pacing, tension, chemistry between characters, etc.)


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Don't confuse "incompetent" with "some folks don't like it" or "doesn't fit my pet criteria".  True incompentence shows in the abysmal failure of the products it produces.  In the movie marketplace, his films have not generally been failures.  Ergo, as a practical matter, he's not incompetent.



I have not so confused the meaning of the word incompetent.  Features such as dialogue, pacing and tension are subjective, yes, but not completely so.  The prequel trilogy shows a noticable level of incompetence in those areas.  Also see above.  I never said he was incompetent across the board, so yeah, you'd expect the films to have _some_ success.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I think the problem we have is that the films are designed (intentionally or not) for a young audience, and folks critique it as if it is designed for a mature audience.



How do you design something unintentionally for a different audience?  That statement doesn't make any sense.  Rather, Lucas is _also_ incompetent in gauging the audience reaction; in other words, he's completely confused about who is target audience really is.  He's belatedly said that the movies were always for children (which I think is patently untrue of the original trilogy, and he's only said so after tPM got a lot of criticism for it's infantile attempts at humor, Jar Jar and kiddie Anakin) but then he comes out and makes _Revenge of the Sith_ which will probably get a PG-13 rating, and if not, is at least very dark in tone and events, and has thematic material that is arguably unsuited for children.  He's either back-pedalling and making excuses for his failures, or he's completely confused about who his target audience is.  Or, quite possibly, both.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, I remember hearing Lucas' touting of the Campbell thing back in... oh, 1989, when I first encountered Campbell.  15 years ago isn't "just lately".



That's relatively recent.  _Jedi_ was released in theaters in 1983.  Back in the documentaries that were aired during the actual initial run of the movies, I don't recall him mentioning much of Joseph Campbell, but rather serials like Buster Crabbe's _Flash Gordon_ and _Buck Rogers_.  It's certainly possible that Lucas was aware of, and consciously utilizing Campbell's theories when he wrote the original screenplays, but if so, he was remarkably quiet about it until someone else pointed it out first.  Then, suddenly, that's what they were always all about.


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Mar 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> He's belatedly said that the movies were always for children... but then he comes out and makes _Revenge of the Sith_ which... has thematic material that is arguably unsuited for children.




_Star Wars_ has never really been for children.  Body limbs get whacked off at least one per film (random arm in Mos Eisley, Luke's hand, Vader's hand, Maul's torso, Anakin's hand... who's next?), never mind the folks who die in a relatively clean fashion in a flaming ball of spaceship or get shot by blasters.  The films have been what the children want because they've got heroic good guys and bad-@$$ bad guys*, the match-up of which didn't get re-rated to PG-13 even though it should've -- just compare any of them (especially _RotJ_) to Kurosawa's _Yojimbo_ -- so parents blithely think it's okay (possibly due to the proliferation of action figures and trading cards) while kids are giddy with seeing things that they arguably shouldn't, certainly not without having to think about it.

But that hits the nail on the head -- the current films just aren't holding a PG-13 quality storyline together, regardless of their rating.  Episode 1 was desperately short on content (anybody remember "The Phantom Edit"?) and Episode 2 was depressingly flat and meandering (why go to Naboo?  That'd be like going to Tatooine in the middle of _ESB_... and for the love of midiclorians, put in a freakin' plot twist!).

I can tell you quite simply that Harrison Ford made the originals watchable -- because he could stand up to the script and ad lib where appropriate.  In one of the "making of" interviews for the _ANH_, one of the actors -- or maybe it was Lucas -- told the story of how Ford was in the middle of a scene and just chokes on a line before spitting out "George, you can write it, but nobody can say this $h|+."  That's why people take such hostile exception to Han not shooting first.

::Kaze()

* -- Really, the best loved bad guys -- Maul and Fett -- are the ones with the fewest lines.  We only love them because they look cool and don't say enough for us to mock them.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 15, 2005)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> _Star Wars_ has never really been for children.




Umm... I'm not so sure about that. Not specifically, no, but back when it first came out, it was to have received a 'G' rating, and FOX appealed for a rating of 'PG' to not scare away the teenage crowd with the 'G' rating.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 15, 2005)

I have to disagree strongly with this:

"This thinking is flawed from the beginnig, though - it nearly never works that way. Young kids don't dream about being heroic young kids; they dream about being heroic adults. (Btw, that's the reason why nearly every superhero comic featuring kids failed miserably.)"

I have 7 and 9 year old boys. They devour books about kids and small animals as heros, not books about grown ups being heros. If Redwall came out in movie format, I don't think we could avoid seeing it about 1,000,000 times. They were so excited to hear that Mary Pope Osborne was signing books in our area (if you don't know who she is, you don't have kids learning to read chapter books, she writes stories about 2 young kids) that they couldn't even speak when they handed me the sheet from school anouncing the details.

As for SW, I've liked TPM more as I've seen it. I think there were too many scenes (don't know what scenes they were) cut out in AotC to make it flow well. I compare it to the movie version of the LotR movies and the director's cuts. Had I never read the books, I would have gotten lost more than a few times in the story movement. (that said, the LotR movies are much better, I don't want to start that arguement here).

I've enjoyed the movies, not just watching them, but sharing them with my boys. Part of the experience of SW when I was a kid, was sharing the experience of seeing them in the theater with my friends. Now, I have that experience with my boys (of seeing them at home - my youngest wants desperately to see RotS in the theater, but I'm severely doubting I'll let him).


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 15, 2005)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I've enjoyed the movies, not just watching them, but sharing them with my boys. Part of the experience of SW when I was a kid, was sharing the experience of seeing them in the theater with my friends. Now, I have that experience with my boys (of seeing them at home - my youngest wants desperately to see RotS in the theater, but I'm severely doubting I'll let him).



There's something to that.  My three year old saw the trailer last night at _Robots_, so he'll definitely go, but much of it will be over his head.  My seven year old is probably only marginally interested, and even then only in the princess (she's a girly girl) and my nine year old has been disinterested in Star Wars for several years, quite probably because the movies simply aren't all that engaging anymore; the older ones are too old and the newer ones just aren't as good.  I'm actually hoping that the darker themes will make the movies more interesting to them!

My 18 month old, we'll be leaving at home.  I'd actually like to be able to watch the movie myself...


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Mar 15, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Umm... I'm not so sure about (Star Wars not being for children). Not specifically, no, but back when it first came out, it was to have received a 'G' rating, and FOX appealed for a rating of 'PG' to not scare away the teenage crowd with the 'G' rating.




Fox: "What?  A G rating?  What do you think this is, a kid's movie?  Look at all of the death and destruction we put in there -- and Chewbacca's not wearing any pants!  We demand at least a PG!"

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

::Kaze (remembers Lucas' story about Fox wanting to put pants on Chewbacca...)


----------



## The Serge (Mar 15, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The proof is in the pudding - and the pudding he's created is among the best loved of all genre films.  Darned hard to call that "incompetence".



I think I made it pretty clear that Lucas' incompetence comes with his ability to execute as a writer (dialogue and story, not plot/premise), director, and in his capacity to understand human motivation/drama and translate it on the big screen.  He has revealed incredible know how in marketing and in moving the technical side of film making to the next level.  I think he (and others) have made the mistake of ignoring that his success as a film maker has had little to do with his story telling abilities and more to do with the management/peripheral side of the industry.



> Don't confuse "incompetent" with "some folks don't like it" or "doesn't fit my pet criteria".  True incompentence shows in the abysmal failure of the products it produces.  In the movie marketplace, his films have not generally been failures.  Ergo, as a practical matter, he's not incompetent.



_Batman and Robin_ did well financially, but you would be hard pressed to find many people who liked that film.  Financial success does not necessarily translate into competence or overall success.  In Lucas' case, as I've said before, he created a great foundation upon which he built a successful (forgive the term) empire.  His strengths lie in management and in story conceptualization/foundation.  His weaknesses like in execution.  His _is_ incompetent when it comes to the important story-driven elements of these films.



> I think the problem we have is that the films are designed (intentionally or not) for a young audience, and folks critique it as if it is designed for a mature audience.



Not only do I disagree with it, I think it's an insult (not a personal one... I know you're not trying to be rude) to adults _and_ children.  Just because something may well be targetted to younger audiences does not immediately relegate it to being simplistic or having little of value to older audiences.  A quality family experience will have enough simplistic elements that convey universal themes and morals (Western, if you want to be picky).  

_A New Hope_ is an example of this.  In this film, Lucas was forced to concentrate on story because he wasn't going to get all of the great effects he envisioned.  As part of this, he tapped (consciously or no) into archetypes that transcend most cultures.  Thus, on the one hand we do have the simplistic shoot-em-up action and fun that will draw children in addition to universal themes like the desire to define one's self, the search for one's heritage and meaning, defense against oppression, etc.  _The Empire Strikes Back_ takes these themes and intensifies them and is argumentatively both more sophisticated in its set up while also being far more visually stimulating.  

Lucas fails to accomplish the feat of these two films in each subsequent sequels/prequels.  While the fx have improved and the stories became more complex (there's a lot of great story to be had in these prequels), Lucas instead focuses on pushing the standard of film technology (I remember the big to-do with the fact that AotC was completely digital... the first of its kind I believe) and on the marketing side (CGI, Jar-Jar, the pod racing, the aliens...  All of these feed into the marketing side far more than into the story side).  As a result, the stories, the direction, the characterization, and the great plot suffered.  This is sheer incompetence that stopped these sequels from being the great, holistic experiences they could and should have been to the entertaining, yet largely empty lemons they are.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 15, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I think he (and others) have made the mistake of ignoring that his success as a film maker has had little to do with his story telling abilities and more to do with the management/peripheral side of the industry.




Quick! Someone go and tell Lucas that A New Hope wasn't successful in its of telling a story!

Really, you can't prove any claims like that one way or the other.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Quick! Someone go and tell Lucas that A New Hope wasn't successful in its of telling a story!



   Are you intentionally _not_ reading the entirety of my posts?  In the post that you quote I specifically state that ANH _is_ successful, the reasons why, and the reasons why RotJ, TPM, and AotC are not as successful as stories.  Please, I don't mind having these kinds of discussions (enjoy them, in fact), but at least read the entire post before responding.



> Really, you can't prove any claims like that one way or the other.



Not sure that I agree with that, but by your rationale, nor can you _disprove_ them.  That's why we're having this discussion.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 15, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> In the post that you quote I specifically state that ANH _is_ successful, the reasons why, and the reasons why RotJ, TPM, and AotC are not as successful as stories.




I know what you said, but I obviously don't agree with it. There is much, much more evidence to support that ALL of the Star Wars films ARE successful as stories. Simply stories? Yep, but stories still. If they weren't successful as stories, no amount of marketing, special effects, or anything that you say Lucas IS competent with would keept the films making as much money as they do. People would NOT keep seeing them.

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/alltime/

Notice there that that the ONLY Star Wars film to top Episode I is the original. Also, note that Episode II has done better than BOTH Return of the Jedi AND Empire. These movies may not be making as much money as the original, but they're doing a damned good job.



> Please, I don't mind having these kinds of discussions (enjoy them, in fact), but at least read the entire post before responding.




New to the internet? 



> Not sure that I agree with that, but by your rationale, nor can you _disprove_ them.  That's why we're having this discussion.




Are you even reading my posts...I said they can't be proved one way or the other!


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/alltime/
> 
> Notice there that that the ONLY Star Wars film to top Episode I is the original. Also, note that Episode II has done better than BOTH Return of the Jedi AND Empire. These movies may not be making as much money as the original, but they're doing a damned good job.




Adjust those numbers for inflation, and Episodes I and II fall far behind the original three.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 15, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Adjust those numbers for inflation, and Episodes I and II fall far behind the original three.



 True, but they'd still be up very high on the list.

Either way, the point still stands that if the stories WEREN'T successful then no amount of other padding could save them. Sure, they aren't the best stories in the world, and the OT is bettter(IMO, too), but they are still successful.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> but they are still successful.




And still good watches.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Either way, the point still stands that if the stories WEREN'T successful then no amount of other padding could save them.



How, exactly, does that point stand? Or rather, what is the evidence upon which that point stands?

I would like to see some evidence that movies are unable to succeed if their stories are unsuccessful. You're making a very large assertion there, you need to provide evidence. I honestly think there's a fair amount of evidence that pictures without much story ARE capable of being successful financially, so I'd like to know what you base your assertion on.

But then, I would use Episodes I and II as part of that evidence.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I know what you said, but I obviously don't agree with it. There is much, much more evidence to support that ALL of the Star Wars films ARE successful as stories. Simply stories? Yep, but stories still. If they weren't successful as stories, no amount of marketing, special effects, or anything that you say Lucas IS competent with would keept the films making as much money as they do. People would NOT keep seeing them.
> 
> http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/alltime/
> 
> Notice there that that the ONLY Star Wars film to top Episode I is the original. Also, note that Episode II has done better than BOTH Return of the Jedi AND Empire. These movies may not be making as much money as the original, but they're doing a damned good job.



As I (and others) have already stated, financial windfall doesn't necessarily translate into a successful film.  The money made by SW does not reflect great stories or even great movies.  Episode I did well by virtue of its _name_ and _association_, not by its story, characterizations, dialogue, and so forth.  The fall out between Episode I and Episode II was considerable because people were more wary about the hype the second time around.  And, let's be honest now, SW has become more about spectacle... People see it because everyone else has seen it, not necessarily because it was a great film.

I'm curious about those numbers... Are they associated with inflation and such?



> New to the internet?



Hardly.  Have my own website.  However, at Dicefreaks, we typically read everyone's posts in their entirety.  



> Are you even reading my posts...I said they can't be proved one way or the other!



Touche.  Still disagree with the suggestion that a position can't be taken.

I think someone else mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating.  The issue here isn't so much that SW have been bad films.  It's that they have not been what they could have been because George Lucas doesn't know how to write a cohesive story with decent characterization nor can he direct people with great efficiency.  The drama is all there, right below the surface, but Lucas failed in RotJ, TPM, and AotC to bring it to the fore because he's incompetent and inept in those areas.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 15, 2005)

It's a very difficult assertion for you to support (that movies without good stories never succeed financially), AMG, because ANY instance of a movie without a story that is successful financially disproves it, while no number of movies with stories that are successful financially (nor any number of movies without stories that are NOT successful financially) will ever prove it.

So it was kind of unfair of me to ask. But then, you're the one who made the assertion in the first place, so I figure it's your job to support it.

Here are inflation-adjusted figures.

Let us note that Episode I comes in at 19th overall, below the original three. Episode II comes in at 80th overall. So there's certainly evidence for an ongoing decline in the quality of these pictures. I think one could also make a pretty compelling argument that Episode I benefitted from a fantastic amount of demand that had built up over the years, thus inflating its figures by a great degree. It's pretty clear that the kind of audience impact of the original films is not being maintained by the second trilogy.

Let us further note that just below Episode I, at 20th, is _Fantasia_.

A film noted for many things, but not, perhaps, having an excellent STORY.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 15, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> As I (and others) have already stated, financial windfall doesn't necessarily translate into a successful film.  The money made by SW does not reflect great stories or even great movies.  Episode I did well by virtue of its _name_ and _association_, not by its story, characterizations, dialogue, and so forth.  The fall out between Episode I and Episode II was considerable because people were more wary about the hype the second time around.  And, let's be honest now, SW has become more about spectacle... People see it because everyone else has seen it, not necessarily because it was a great film.




But peope aren't going to go see a movie if everyone is coming back saying it sucks. THAT is my point.



> I'm curious about those numbers... Are they associated with inflation and such?




I somehow doubt inflation is calculated in with those.



> It's that they have not been what they could have been because George Lucas doesn't know how to write a cohesive story with decent characterization nor can he direct people with great efficiency.  The drama is all there, right below the surface, but Lucas failed in RotJ, TPM, and AotC to bring it to the fore because he's incompetent and inept in those areas.




But I don't believe he failed at all. And obviously I'm not alone. It seems to me that you're taking the little information we have on things and going straight to the extreme of Lucas being inept and incompetent. If he can't write a cohsive story, it would show in more than just fans complaining. It would show in the amount of money made because people don't go and see it.

Bad movies don't make money. Like it or not, you ARE saying that the movies are bad by saying that Lucas is inept and incompetent in storytelling. If you don't mean to, then its at least strongly implied. 

I really think Wombat had a point earlier on. Its not Lucas or any of 'his' movies that are the problem. Its Empire. THAT movie is the oddity among the rest, and it really shows. Sure, its my favorite, but it doesn't mean it isn't vastly different than ALL of the other Star Wars movies. Lucas is telling his story his way because that's the way he wants to tell it(whether we agree with it or not), and Empire really was the anomily among it all. 

Maybe we should start blaming Empire instead of Lucas.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 15, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's a very difficult assertion for you to support (that movies without good stories never succeed financially), AMG, because ANY instance of a movie without a story that is successful financially disproves it, while no number of movies with stories that are successful financially (nor any number of movies without stories that are NOT successful financially) will ever prove it.
> 
> So it was kind of unfair of me to ask. But then, you're the one who made the assertion in the first place, so I figure it's your job to support it.
> 
> ...




And below all of THAT are the Lord of the Rings Movies so NYAH! NYAH NYAH!  

Interesting to see those with the numbers adjusted for inflation.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 15, 2005)

Ebert's review of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace.

Ebert's summed up pretty much of what I thought of Episode I and II (although this is his review for Episode I, and his Episode II review is... quite different.)


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 15, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> You would be surprised how many non-fans I know who STILL have no idea Palpatine is Sidious.  I just explained it AGAIN the other day when one of the undergrads in my lab was watching the trailer and freaked out when he saw Palpy charge Mace and his little posse.



How many of these non-fans actually watched the original trilogy?  I find it hard to believe that, having seen the original trilogy, there is any opacity in tPM's plot.  For non-fans who've never watched the OT, I can see it, otherwise...







> "...the character _design_ is wasted in a cheap death"
> Fixed that for you.   There was an interesting character design, but no character there to speak of.  And as for Dooku.... blasphemy!  I was thrilled to see an ACTUAL villain in the apprentice role instead of style over substance.



I'll accept the fix.  My problem is with the waste of the design, not the character which as you point out is not a character at all.  And that's exactly my problem with Dooku.  In a world of Darth Vaders and Darth Mauls and Darth Sideous's, Count Dooku sticks out like a plain thumb.  Yes, we had Grand Moff Tarkin in ANH, but note that _he's_ the one that got whacked in one movie, not Darth Vader.







> Plus, the sword-fights with him did a much better job of looking like someone who knew what he was doing.  That asinine double-lightsaber was the second worst idea in TPM.



I disagree here.  A double-bladed lightsaber works, because it can cut at any angle (unlike the D&D double-bladed sword, which is silly.)  I thought Maul's combination of a staff-fighting type still and Wing Chun was fantastic visually.  Indeed, it made it all the more jarring and silly when Maul died, because he'd been so badass up until he needed to be killed. :/







> It is, however, dramatically useless.  It is impossible to lose such a fight.  Without the constraint of a body hooked to the sword, it can slip around any attack instantly and end the fight in about 1/4 of a second.



Perhaps.  The Star Wars game _Knights of the Old Republic II_ has a villain who uses such an attack, though, and it seemed dramatically viable in the game. 


> Besides, I find it to be of dubious coolness.  Using the Force to propel his 800+ year old body into battle is cool, even if I dislike some aspects of the execution.  Personally, I think they should have spent some more time studying the couple of Kali and Silat masters who are about 4'8".  How those guys fight a tall opponent is freakin' cool.



I'm not familiar with the styles you're talking about, but I don't doubt it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> And that's exactly my problem with Dooku. In a world of Darth Vaders and Darth Mauls and Darth Sideous's, Count Dooku sticks out like a plain thumb. Yes, we had Grand Moff Tarkin in ANH, but note that _he's_ the one that got whacked in one movie, not Darth Vader.




Well, the story caled for a sith that was a politician, not necessarily just a martial fighter. Enter Christopher Lee to fill that role. I'm actually pretty satisfied with Dooku. The name could have been more inspired and the bent lightsaber is silly, but otherwise I have no complaints with this character.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 16, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Bad movies don't make money.



Again, you make this (or at least a remarkably similar) assertion.

This patently flies in the face of cinema history, my friend. Bad movies not only make money, they make very very very large amounts of money. Often they are more profitable than higher-quality films because they cost so little to make.

I mean, I'm sure _Friday the Thirteenth Part Eight_ pulled in a healthy profit. Are you saying that means it was a good movie?

Bad movies DO make money. Bad music makes money. Bad products make all kinds of money all over the world, because people buy stuff for all sorts of reasons besides quality.

If you want to define "good" as "profitable" and "bad" as "unprofitable", then you're speaking your own little language that isn't English. Because those terms are different because those CONCEPTS are different.

I only like good films. I only dislike bad films. Ergo, good films are films that I like, regardless of how much money they make. And bad films are films I dislike. And I dislike TPM and it is therefore a bad film.

I hope there are no further questions.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 16, 2005)

Alright...how about this:

Unsuccessful films don't make the kind of money that the Star Wars films do.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Alright...how about this:
> 
> Unsuccessful films don't make the kind of money that the Star Wars films do.



Yes...  but since that's a tautology, you haven't really said anything at all.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I thought Maul's combination of a staff-fighting type still and Wing Chun was fantastic visually.  Indeed, it made it all the more jarring and silly when Maul died, because he'd been so badass up until he needed to be killed. :/



Not if he was singing "Everybody have fun tonight" he wasn't badass.



Oh, _wing chun_.  Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yes...  but since that's a tautology, you haven't really said anything at all.



 Well, then we should tell that to The Serge, who has said:



> ...financial windfall doesn't necessarily translate into a successful film.




My point is fairly simple. Yes, it does. If the story was NOT successful, then no amount of merchandising or even the Star Wars name could get the kind of money that the prequels are making.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Maybe I'm not clear enough.  _Successful_ and _makes money_ mean the same thing.  They are completely synonymous.  You can call me Joshua or you can call me Dyal or even JD or J-dawg, but it's still me.  All you are doing is stating the definition of successful.

Which has nothing to do with how good the movie is.  If you recall, that was the subject of the conversation.

You could say "Poor quality films don't make the kind of money that the Star Wars prequels made" and that would at least be a statement that says something.  You'd be hard pressed to prove that, though, and I guarantee there will be folks that disagree with it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 16, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> If the story was NOT successful, then no amount of merchandising or even the Star Wars name could get the kind of money that the prequels are making.



You keep stating this like it's some well-agreed-upon notion that nobody's going to argue.

I am in fact arguing precisely against that. I am asking you to demonstrate that a "successful" story is a necessity for a film to make large amounts of money.

I point to _Fantasia_, the 20th-biggest money-maker in history, as a film that, bereft of any story whatsoever, refutes your assertion. Indeed, I am pointing to the very films under discussion, Episodes I and II, as refutations of your assertion.

I say, "These films have crappy stories."

You say, "Films with crappy stories cannot make lots of money. These films made lots of money, ergo they do not have crappy stories."

I say, "Prove to me that films with crappy stories cannot make lots of money."

We seem to have stalled on that point. Until you can offer a defense of your assertion, it doesn't count as evidence that these films do not have crappy stories.

I mean, if you want to say, "Films that make lots of money are, um, films that make lots of money," I won't stop you. But that's a HUGE leap from, "Films that make lots of money are GOOD films."

If you're not arguing that these are good films, then no worries. We're done here.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You can call me Joshua or you can call me Dyal or even JD or J-dawg, but it's still me.



Can I call you "Sugarplum"?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I have not so confused the meaning of the word incompetent.  Features such as dialogue, pacing and tension are subjective, yes, but not completely so.  The prequel trilogy shows a noticable level of incompetence in those areas.




Hm.  I think you guys may be the first ones I've ever heard using incompetence to come in "levels".  To most folk, the word implies an absolute, complete lack of ability, not a gradiation.  I betcha you'd have bypassed a lot of argument if, rather than claim he's incompetent, you instead said that you felt he was less competent than many other filmmakers.  



> He's belatedly said that the movies were always for children (which I think is patently untrue of the original trilogy,




I said "younger audience", not "children".  I think 13 to 16 year olds are a less sophisticated audience.  And, back in the late 70s, they were even less sophisticated than they are now.  Whatever he may have said (everyone lies in public statements when marketing is on the line) I expect the teens were the real intended audience for the films.  

As for them not being for kids - I dunno.  I was in single-digit age when the first movie came out, and the violence did not bother me.  Nor did it bug my parents, nor the parents of any of my friends at the time.  The whole "violence is not for kids" is an invention more recent than Star Wars.



> That's relatively recent.  _Jedi_ was released in theaters in 1983.




Right.  It's still _two decades ago_.  You wanna call that "recent", go right ahead.  But don't make it soudn like Lucas made it up after Episode 1 came out.




> Back in the documentaries that were aired during the actual initial run of the movies, I don't recall him mentioning much of Joseph Campbell, but rather serials like Buster Crabbe's _Flash Gordon_ and _Buck Rogers_.




Yes, and back at that time, nobody outside of academic circles knew who Campbell was.  If you're making a documentary for mass consumption, you don't start talking about socio-mythological theories from a man knobody's heard of.

Lucas held Campbell in such high regard that he opened up his studios for the filming of "The Power of Myth". Campbell himself stated that the original movies were a nigh-perfect modern execution of his theories.  What more do you want?


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Can I call you "Sugarplum"?



Yes.  But only you.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 16, 2005)

Then why, J-dawg(I'm sorry, I had to), is The Serge allowed to say they are NOT the same thing? My comments were directed to him after he said that they were NOT successful.

I know what the subject of conversation is. I've even agreed multiple times that the prequels are not as good as the OT. That's not a point that very many people will debate anyway. The problem I have is when Lucas is called imcompetent and inept at storytelling. If he WAS so incompetent, the movies would NOT be as successful as they have been. People wouldn't keep seeing them and they wouldn't keep making so much money.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Hm.  I think you guys may be the first ones I've ever heard using incompetence to come in "levels".  To most folk, the word implies an absolute, complete lack of ability, not a gradiation.  I betcha you'd have bypassed a lot of argument if, rather than claim he's incompetent, you instead said that you felt he was less competent than many other filmmakers.



Whoever said competence was a binary on or off condition?  In my daily conversation, "how competent is this person at this job" is a very common phrase.  I've never heard competence used as anything other than a spectrum.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I said "younger audience", not "children".  I think 13 to 16 year olds are a less sophisticated audience.  And, back in the late 70s, they were even less sophisticated than they are now.  Whatever he may have said (everyone lies in public statements when marketing is on the line) I expect the teens were the real intended audience for the films.



I wasn't talking about what you said so much as I was talking about what Lucas said.  And there were some pretty sophisticated movies being made long before Star Wars; in fact, Star Wars helped paved the way for less sophisticated summer blockbusters.  I don't know why audiences were less sophisticated in the 70s if the movies weren't.  Unless that's your evidence that the target audience was younger than merely adults.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> As for them not being for kids - I dunno.  I was in single-digit age when the first movie came out, and the violence did not bother me.  Nor did it bug my parents, nor the parents of any of my friends at the time.  The whole "violence is not for kids" is an invention more recent than Star Wars.



Didn't bother me either.  Doesn't mean it was marketed to me.  The violence in _Captain Blood_ didn't bother me either, but that doesn't mean it was targetted at children who were 7 or however old I was when I first saw the film.  I'd disagree that "violence is not for kids" is a more recent invention than Star Wars.  I feeling may have intensified recently, but it's been there pretty much forever.  After all, the MPAA was founded in 1922 largely to promote the film industry by maintaining audience controls; i.e., ratings that kept children out of movies that were deemed inappropriate. 


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Right.  It's still _two decades ago_.  You wanna call that "recent", go right ahead.  But don't make it soudn like Lucas made it up after Episode 1 came out.



Which no one ever claimed.  However, it's still relatively recent.  It was quite a while after the original movies had long been history.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes, and back at that time, nobody outside of academic circles knew who Campbell was.  If you're amking adocumentary for mass consumption, you don't start talking about socio-mythological theories from a man knobody's heard of.



You do if he's the leading authority.  Haven't you seen a documentary recently?  They're always quoting experts no one has heard of.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Lucas held Campbell in such high regard that he opened up his studios for the filming of "The Power of Myth". Campbell himself stated that the original movies were a nigh-perfect modern execution of his theories.  What more do you want?



Which is when Lucas started jumping on that himself.  I mean, c'mon.  It was a win-win for both Campbell and Lucas to be associated together.  Campbell got a lot of visibility by associating his theories with the most popular movies ever made (at that point) and Lucas legitimized his movies by associating them with a professor who had a theory that could map relatively well to his creation.  I'm not saying that Lucas wasn't already familiar with Campbell, or base his movies on them, but I think it's pretty suspicous that he didn't make any such claims until after the fact.  Quite a while after the fact, for that matter, and rather, he is on record as equating his stories with a much more low-brow entertainment in the old Flash Gordon serials.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Then why, J-dawg(I'm sorry, I had to), is The Serge allowed to say they are NOT the same thing? My comments were directed to him after he said that they were NOT successful.



Because his posts are longer and specific phrases get lost in them.    To be honest with you, I hadn't noticed it, but if that's what he said, that's a similarly empty statement.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Which is when Lucas started jumping on that himself.  I mean, c'mon.  It was a win-win for both Campbell and Lucas to be associated together.  Campbell got a lot of visibility by associating his theories with the most popular movies ever made (at that point) and Lucas legitimized his movies by associating them with a professor who had a theory that could map relatively well to his creation.  I'm not saying that Lucas wasn't already familiar with Campbell, or base his movies on them, but I think it's pretty suspicous that he didn't make any such claims until after the fact.  Quite a while after the fact, for that matter, and rather, he is on record as equating his stories with a much more low-brow entertainment in the old Flash Gordon serials.




I may disagree with you on some things, J-Dawg, but this has had me curious since the recent DVDs came out. It seemed that up until then, pretty much all that was said was that they were Flash Gordon-esque movies. Sure, they touched on major archetypes, but the Campbell thing wasn't touted all that much at all until recently.

But now that I think about it, has Lucas actually said anything like that? Thinking about the Empire of Dreams documentary, I can't remember Lucas really saying anything about Campbell other than a "Yes I was influenced by him." It seems like it was more the other people interviewed that talked about the Campbell influences.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 16, 2005)

It's pretty hard to measure the quality of a film, commercial success notwithstanding.

Prior to this year's Oscars I've heard some people say (as they were being interviewed on TV) that this year's Oscar for best movie should go to "Alien vs Predator". So for them AvP had everything that makes a good movie...

Anyway, I watched tPM again yesterday, and it didn't suck - imagine my surprise.




			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Although that flies in the face of the logic on the success of Harry Potter, though.



There's a catch: The Potter novels go to great length to show a means to escape the real (miserable? ordinary?) life - kids can relate to that. They can't relate to a pod-racing kid living on a desert world.



			
				Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I have 7 and 9 year old boys. They devour books about kids and small animals as heros, not books about grown ups being heros.



And that's not necessarily the age I'm talking about - although 9 is pretty close. I was thinking 10-12, give or take a few years (and at a later age most kids will think of _themselves_ as adults  ). And it might work if the kids in the story are older than the kids reading the story.
(Animals are a totally different matter, but I'll stop now, as we're rapidly approaching off-topic.)


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> But now that I think about it, has Lucas actually said anything like that? Thinking about the Empire of Dreams documentary, I can't remember Lucas really saying anything about Campbell other than a "Yes I was influenced by him." It seems like it was more the other people interviewed that talked about the Campbell influences.



Oh, yeah.  I bought the last re-release of the OT trilogy before the Special Edition came out (on VHS, naturally, since that's all they were release as.)  There was a three part interview with Leonard Maltin where he mentioned that several times.

Now, his influence by Kurosawa is perhaps more like what you describe, though -- it's mostly been other folks making comparisons other than him.  In fact, some people go so far as to say that the first Star Wars is little more than a ripoff of _The Hidden Fortress_.  Which is, if you've seen _The Hidden Fortress_, completely preposterous.  There are a few superficial similarities, but there are some huge differences in terms of plot, character, theme, even and more.


----------



## driver8 (Mar 16, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Ebert's review of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace.
> 
> Ebert's summed up pretty much of what I thought of Episode I and II (although this is his review for Episode I, and his Episode II review is... quite different.)





Dang mojo..you beat me too it.

I have to say..I have been prone to Lucas bashing myself..and Ive also got caught up in the hyperbole fueled attacks on rumors and second guessing that surrounds the  prequels.

As Ebert says in his review, telling the story in the prequel is harder. We know how the story eventually ends. And we are now all familiar with the universe and its rules that have been established-theres less of a "wow" factor now. Lucas may not be John Ford or even Steven Spielberg when it comes to narrative or storytelling but...

Alot of the problem with the prequels is with us the fans.

We expect certain things. Star Wars is "ours" now. And when we dont get it(whatever that is), we're mad.

Is the prequel acting somewhat woody? Yea IMHO.
Does there seem to be less of an emotional center than the Original trilogy? Sure.

But there's still so much to me that was cool in these movies so far:

Seeing the Jedi Order in its late flowering.
Qui-Gon Jinn
The battle with Darth Maul.
The entire battle opening the Clone Wars in Ep II.


Anyways, Im hoping Ep III brings alot of holy crap moments and is more Empire Strikes Back in tone than Return of the Jedi. And I;ll be seeing it on opening night


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 16, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm going to agree with you to a point. When I went back and watched AotC recently, it struck me that the period Lucas was showing in many ways mirrored our own history at the beginning of World War I. At that time, people believed that society as a whole was enlightened and striving towards great progress (the reality may not have reflected this, but idealistic socialites rarely concern themselves with the plight of the working folk who put money in their pockets). Industrialization was seen as a good thing, and no one even conceived of the horror that would be WWI, WWII, or the nuclear bomb. Going into WWI, people thought they would go out, fight their enemy, and be home by supper. It was the first modern war, and it was more terrible than anything they had ever seen before. There was a definite naivety on the part of almost everyone involved, and had they known that it would become an extremely costly war of attrition, both warring alliances would probably have worked out a peaceful solution. I think that there are some definite parallels between that period and the period in the prequels.
> 
> In addition to this, Lucas definitely wanted to show how Palpatine did not steal his power, it was willingly given to him. Its a commentary on how governments work, and how people are ruled. Lucas has a pretty good grasp of Machiavellian thought when it comes right down to it, and should serve as a cautionary allegory for what might happen in the free countries of the real world.



Wow, I never really saw it that way before.  Good stuff.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> While the political aspects of the story are not nearly as entertaining as the swashbuckling of the original trilogy, it does setup the back story upon which the original was built. Lucas himself said that the reason he started with IV, V, and VI was because he felt that they were more a entertaining story. Given that this is what he thought in the beginning, it should come as no surprise that the prequels aren't being received as well as they could be. He just isn't telling the same type of story.



Agreed, again.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Despite this, I agree that he could have done a better job with the directing, the pacing, and the characterizations. Jar Jar and pod racing ruined TPM for me (as if the title itself wasn't bad enough), and there were some story elements that probably should have been scrutinized a bit before being committed to film. All in all, they're OK movies that could have been better, but they also could have been far, far worse.



I've never liked Lucas the director.  A New Hope is the exception that proves the rule, IMO.  He is a wonderful storyteller and conceptualist and producer, however.  He does need to stay away from the writing/directing duties.  Although, I must admit that the man does know how to do action scenes.  It's just the other stuff that I find lacking.  I refer again to the novelization of tPM where his concepts were brought to life better than the movie.

On a final note, I really loved the pod race.  Reminded me of the trench run in a few spots (close ups, zooms, pacing).  It wasn't as good but it is certainly more watchable (sans announcer) than most of the Gungan stuff.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 16, 2005)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> * -- Really, the best loved bad guys -- Maul and Fett -- are the ones with the fewest lines. We only love them because they look cool and don't say enough for us to mock them.



Um.

They are most certainly popular but nowhere close to the best loved.  That title is and will always belong to Darth Vader.  He had lots of lines.  They were pretty cool, too.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Because his posts are longer and specific phrases get lost in them.



Hey!  Are you suggesting I'm verbose?!  




> To be honest with you, I hadn't noticed it, but if that's what he said, that's a similarly empty statement.



I disagree with you on this one, Joshua.  Success from a monetary perspective is important within the industry.  I suppose one could say it's a _kind_ of success.  However, I don't believe that monetary success means that one has a successful movie.  There are quite a few movies that did not do well financially in the box office that many who have seen them find quite enjoyable and arguably more effective than many blockbusters.  

Equating financial success to a film's overall success can be very misleading.  Frankly, the two are often mutually exclusive.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 16, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Joshua Dyal said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree with this completely.

There are many films that do well financially that are considered abyssmal by the general public, by fans of the genre, and/or by critics.  I already cited _Batman and Robin_ which did not do poorly box office wise.  

Spectacle is what draws people to see a film as much as word of mouth.  Everyone saw and resaw films like _Batman_ not necessarily because it was a great film, but because it was/became a social icon or social event.  _The Phantom Menance_ did well because of the name (Star Wars) and the hype.  People saw and resaw it.  It was pretty to look at too.  And, children wanted to drag their parents out to see it.  And fans (including yours truly) saw it at least three times, bringing new people along each time (for me, it was my "Sink the Titanic a Second Time Campaign that motivated me... So far, this campaign has failed).  _But this does not mean that the film was great or successful as a story._  People aren't always interested in reliable stories as much as they are in spectacle.  That's why crappy movies continue to be produced.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 16, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Hm.  I think you guys may be the first ones I've ever heard using incompetence to come in "levels".  To most folk, the word implies an absolute, complete lack of ability, not a gradiation.  I betcha you'd have bypassed a lot of argument if, rather than claim he's incompetent, you instead said that you felt he was less competent than many other filmmakers.



Actually, I think I was pretty clear as to what I meant when I said he was incompetent and inept.  I was specific in pointing out where his ineptidudes could be found:  direction, dialogue, ability to capture the human side, and writing the specific story (rather than the broad plot).  I said:



> I think the problem is we have an inept and incompetent director/writer who dominates the entire process and does not take suggestion well. Lucas is a great conceptualist. He has good ideas and creates great foundations. However, it's his execution that stinks which is why he needs others involved in the creative process.




My emphasis has always been with his ability to direct and write, not with anything else when I talk about his incompetence.



> Lucas held Campbell in such high regard that he opened up his studios for the filming of "The Power of Myth". Campbell himself stated that the original movies were a nigh-perfect modern execution of his theories.  What more do you want?



And he would largely be right... especially with the initial set up in _A New Hope_, the startling revelations in _The Empire Strikes Back_, and with certain elements (primarily the final confrontation between Luke and Darth Vader and the "redemption" of Anakin Skywalker) of _Return of the Jedi_.  This does not necessarily translate into all three being successful films from a writing/directorial perspective.  While ANH and TESB work on that level (the latter more so than the former), the same cannot be said of RotJ outside of the examples I cite.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 16, 2005)

Mr. Kaze said:
			
		

> _Star Wars_ has never really been for children.  Body limbs get whacked off at least one per film (random arm in Mos Eisley, Luke's hand, Vader's hand, Maul's torso, Anakin's hand... who's next?), never mind the folks who die in a relatively clean fashion in a flaming ball of spaceship or get shot by blasters.



I canNOT disagree with this point more.  As far as I can tell, the punk Bros. Grimm decided all by themselves that all the violence, rape, sexual deviancy, and what not that was part of the popular culture of their time in the form of fairy tales was a bad thing for children.  Thanks to the age of literacy, and the total lack of an oral tradition in Western culture as of that time, Fairy Tales and Nursery Tales became the, ironically, sanitized Grimm versions.

Since then, the idea that violence is bad for children has just gotten more and more hold on the culture, despite the total absence of reasoning or evidence for it.

In any case, the level of violence in the Star Wars films is STILL less than that of even sanitized nursery rhymes.  A scientific study that I cannot find my link to has actually proven that reading nursery rhymes (even more modern ones) provides significantly more acts of violence per minute than the most violent thing on television (the news) and even all but the most violent R-rated movies.

Star Wars is VERY child-friendly.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> How many of these non-fans actually watched the original trilogy?  I find it hard to believe that, having seen the original trilogy, there is any opacity in tPM's plot.



Well, all of them.  The undergrad in question nearly wet himself in anticipation when I told him I had the trailer.  He's a fan without being _one of us_.  Saw the OT on video as a kid, but it was after all the hoopla had died down.  Then there's my father, who sat through the OT with me about a thousand times in my youth, is a reasonably sharp fellow, and enjoys the movies tremendously, but he didn't put it together entirely until Palpy's conversation with Anakin in AotC.  He thought Palpy "was up to something" in tPM, but didn't think he was Siddious.  Remember, in the OT, the Emperor was "the Emperor" NOT "Emperor Palpatine."  You only saw that name in the novels and some of the other tie-ins. 



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> A double-bladed lightsaber works, because it can cut at any angle



Which makes it very, very hard to use in real life, because most of those angles are just as dangerous to you as to your opponent, if not more so.  It would be too dangerous to use, realistically, and the fact that you can only grip it in the middle takes away the primary advantage of a staff, reach.  Every staff technique I've ever seen relies upon grips that are impossible with that beast.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I thought Maul's combination of a staff-fighting type still and Wing Chun was fantastic visually.



It was.  And I loved it when I first saw it, but once I took some martial arts it became increasingly irksome.  It's not so bad when he was 1-on-1 with one of them, but when he was fighting both jedi, there are too many moments where Ewan McGregor visibly hesitates to wait for Park to get his blade into place and what not.  It's just not possible to use that "weapon" efficiently.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Indeed, it made it all the more jarring and silly when Maul died, because he'd been so badass up until he needed to be killed.



Well, sure.  He had to be bad-ass to overcome the severe limitations of that weapon.   I personally found him to be much more impressive when he was using only one side of the thing.  I REALLY wanted to see more of that first fight in the desert with Qui-gon.  The use of a single blade with that really long handle was cool.  And the additional leverage would be nice.

Similarly, people keep complaining about Dooku's "bent lightsaber."  I don't see the problem.  It's not like the blade was curved.  And there is a precedent for curved handles in swords.  Arguably, it merely makes the lightsaber into a one-handed sword instead of it's typical sort of hand-and-a-half usage.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> The Star Wars game _Knights of the Old Republic II_ has a villain who uses such an attack, though, and it seemed dramatically viable in the game.



Let me try to explain, though this is difficult without visuals.  I've got my lightsaber floating a foot or so from my body.  You swing at me.  My lightsaber flies into place to deflect your attack.  For an instant, our blades are crossed in front of us, a la the old Luke vs Vader duels.  Then, the handle of my blade swings towards you and down, using it's point of contact with your blade as a pivot point.  If my arm was connected to it, you could kill me instantly, because the entire side of my body is exposed to you with no defense, but since my sword is floating free, I _might_ need to take a step back, but in the meantime my blade has made a full revolution and taken your arm off.  Or your head, if I had picked that angle.  Even if I had to stay within 12 inches of the lightsaber at all times to maintain control, without an arm attached to it to limit movement, the sword can do all manner of things that make it invincible.

This is why I don't believe in animated swords in D&D, either.  It is impossible to defeat them, with any sort of verisimilitude.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Now, his influence by Kurosawa is perhaps more like what you describe, though -- it's mostly been other folks making comparisons other than him.  In fact, some people go so far as to say that the first Star Wars is little more than a ripoff of _The Hidden Fortress_.  Which is, if you've seen _The Hidden Fortress_, completely preposterous.  There are a few superficial similarities, but there are some huge differences in terms of plot, character, theme, even and more.



Have you seen the purported early drafts of the script?  One of them is practically a transcript of _The Hidden Fortress_ with the droids being Imperial Bureaucrats along for the ride much like the peasants in Kurosawa's film.  And c'mon, it's not hard to see that droid-peasant comparison even in the final film, right down to the bickering in the desert.  Later drafts sound more like ANH and RotJ smashed into each other, with Wookies in place of Ewoks.  Ben's death was actually a relatively late addition to the whole thing, though I don't remember if it was before or after he and Luke switched names.

God, I'm a geek..


----------



## Greylock (Mar 16, 2005)

My favorite "Hidden Fortress" moment from Star Wars is the medal ceremony at the end. It is a note for note tribute  to the same scene from Kurosawa. That little step down Princess Leia makes right before passing out the medals? In "Hidden Fortress" that's the Princess stepping down off a low porch.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 16, 2005)

I STILL think it was rude not to give Chewbacca a medal!


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 16, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Which makes it very, very hard to use in real life, because most of those angles are just as dangerous to you as to your opponent, if not more so.  It would be too dangerous to use, realistically, and the fact that you can only grip it in the middle takes away the primary advantage of a staff, reach.  Every staff technique I've ever seen relies upon grips that are impossible with that beast.




Which is what made Maul a threat, was that he could not only wield a saber well, but a dual-saber that could, if you didn't have enough skill, could hurt.



> Similarly, people keep complaining about Dooku's "bent lightsaber."  I don't see the problem.  It's not like the blade was curved.  And there is a precedent for curved handles in swords.  Arguably, it merely makes the lightsaber into a one-handed sword instead of it's typical sort of hand-and-a-half usage.




When I did my Star Wars fanfilm for Grade 12 Communications Tech, the friend that was teaching them swordfighting used this box of sabers a former student had donated to my teacher. He tried different ones (including Qui-Gon's, Maul's, Luke's, and Dooku's). When he did things with Dooku's, he felt weird at first with the bent saber, but as you start doing some more moves (especially complex twirling ones), it really is better.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Have you seen the purported early drafts of the script?  One of them is practically a transcript of _The Hidden Fortress_ with the droids being Imperial Bureaucrats along for the ride much like the peasants in Kurosawa's film.  And c'mon, it's not hard to see that droid-peasant comparison even in the final film, right down to the bickering in the desert.  Later drafts sound more like ANH and RotJ smashed into each other, with Wookies in place of Ewoks.  Ben's death was actually a relatively late addition to the whole thing, though I don't remember if it was before or after he and Luke switched names.
> 
> God, I'm a geek..



I have, but they're irrelevent really.  They didn't get made into the film, after all.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> When I did my Star Wars fanfilm for Grade 12 Communications Tech, the friend that was teaching them swordfighting used this box of sabers a former student had donated to my teacher. He tried different ones (including Qui-Gon's, Maul's, Luke's, and Dooku's). When he did things with Dooku's, he felt weird at first with the bent saber, but as you start doing some more moves (especially complex twirling ones), it really is better.



As an old fencing nerd, the "bent saber" is driving me up the wall.  It's called a pistol grip.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 16, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I STILL think it was rude not to give Chewbacca a medal!



 THAT is the problem with Star Wars. No Wookie love.

...err...actually, maybe that's a good thing.


----------



## Villano (Mar 16, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I disagree with you on this one, Joshua.  Success from a monetary perspective is important within the industry.  I suppose one could say it's a _kind_ of success.  However, I don't believe that monetary success means that one has a successful movie.  There are quite a few movies that did not do well financially in the box office that many who have seen them find quite enjoyable and arguably more effective than many blockbusters.




I don't think anyone will argue with this.  There are many films which are great but don't do well at the box office.  More to the point of this discussion is the fact that there are even more bad movies which make a lot of money.

Case in point, I rented a movie called Scarecrow Slayer, a horror film with a killer scarecrow.  It sounded pretty interesting, so I gave it a try.

Wow, it was terrible.  Incompetent on every level.  There was also an overuse of really, realy bad CGI (some scenes look like they were shot in front of a blue screen, and they even used CGI for character deaths).  Terrible stuff.

The point is, I rented this from a chain store.  Other national chains, like Blockbuster, also probably carry it.  And I just saw copies in the $5 DVD bin at my local Walmart.  Add them together and you have many, many copies of this DVD sold.   Considering the movie (if I can use that term loosely) looks like it only cost $37 to make, it probably was successful from a monetary point.  It doesn't make it any less incompetent.

Or we could talk about comics.  Rob Liefeld, anyone?  You can't deny that he's sold a lot of comics.  However, you'll find very few people who will say he's a good writer or artist, let alone a great one.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 16, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Actually, I think I was pretty clear as to what I meant when I said he was incompetent and inept.




Again, the proof is in the pudding.  Did you intend to say that he was something other than completely without skill within the stated areas?  If you wanted to say he was totally useless on thse counts, then you were clear.  If not, then the word choice clouded the issue, at least for me.  Mr. Dyal seems to have wanted to say he was at some "level", implying that he might be someplace other than rock-bottom, and that didn't get across to me on his first statement.

Neither here nor there, though.  This is digressing into a discussion of word-choice and effective inflection in a text-only medium, which is probably an unwanted hijack.



> This does not necessarily translate into all three being successful films from a writing/directorial perspective.




Whether and how following Campbell's outline leads to good things is an entirely separate discussion, I agree.  I was still trying to get across the idea that Lucas had not made up the association from whole cloth after the fact.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Now, his influence by Kurosawa is perhaps more like what you describe, though -- it's mostly been other folks making comparisons other than him.  In fact, some people go so far as to say that the first Star Wars is little more than a ripoff of _The Hidden Fortress_.  Which is, if you've seen _The Hidden Fortress_, completely preposterous.  There are a few superficial similarities, but there are some huge differences in terms of plot, character, theme, even and more.



Mm. I think it's

A. Perfectly obvious that Lucas watched Kurosawa very carefully before directing Star Wars. The wipes, the use of music, the setting-the-scene shots -- all very Kurosawa.

B. Arguable that _The Hidden Fortress_ serves as a pretty significant inspiration for _Star Wars_. The princess, the bickering menials, the swashbuckling hero, the final award-granting scene -- all very _Star Wars_-y. Of course Kurosawa's film doesn't have a Luke-type of character, and obviously that means you can't directly map one film to the other, but he'd obviously SEEN the picture and been strongly affected by it.

C. Perfectly obvious that Kurosawa exceeds Lucas on every single level. Things that in Kurosawa's hands are beautifully timed and structured moments are heavy-handed and facile in Lucas'.

*shrug*

Lucas is a hack. He got spectacularly lucky with _Star Wars_ (the original film) and I don't believe for a second he ever planned anything other than that one film at first. It was only with the incredible success of the original picture that he even THOUGHT of doing more films. And I wish he'd never done a single sequel.

I agree that the climactic fight scene in Episode I is spectacular. But Lucas didn't direct that -- that was directed by the stunt team, I'm sure. And powered by Ewan, Liam and Ray's tremendous desire to create a fantastic fight scene and do whatever it took to accomplish.

Compare with the Gungan battle -- devoid of tension, insipid and full of empty, meaningless shots that do nothing to either advance the story or produce emotion.

I think I know which one Lucas had more input on...


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Canis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



???

The early drafts are irrelevant?  That's sort of like saying that Shakespeare's play is irrelevant to Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet.

Not buying it.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> As an old fencing nerd, the "bent saber" is driving me up the wall.  It's called a pistol grip.



Thanks.  That was bugging me.  I knew it had a name I should be remembering.

Can you expand at all on the functional significance of such a grip?  I've only ever used straight grips (escrima sticks, staves, and such).


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 16, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> THAT is the problem with Star Wars. No Wookie love.
> 
> ...err...actually, maybe that's a good thing.




That, sir, was very rude


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Hey!  Are you suggesting I'm verbose?!



Who, me?  


			
				The Serge said:
			
		

> I disagree with you on this one, Joshua.  Success from a monetary perspective is important within the industry.  I suppose one could say it's a _kind_ of success.  However, I don't believe that monetary success means that one has a successful movie.  There are quite a few movies that did not do well financially in the box office that many who have seen them find quite enjoyable and arguably more effective than many blockbusters.
> 
> Equating financial success to a film's overall success can be very misleading.  Frankly, the two are often mutually exclusive.



Although I totally agree with you, the problem with using successful in terms of a movie in any way other than "financially successful" is that it converts the evaluation from an objective one into a subjective one.  Successful at what?  Entertaining me?  Entertaining you?  Making an impact on the industry?  Or turning a profit?

Sure, financially successful may be the most boring interpretation of it, but its the only one that can be discussed objectively.

Not that all our discussions have to be objective, but if Ankh was trying to establish a baseline for discussion, I guess I took it for granted that he was using successful to mean financially successful.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 16, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> That, sir, was very rude



 No, its just making sure the movies don't get an NC-17 rating.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 16, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Well, all of them.  The undergrad in question nearly wet himself in anticipation when I told him I had the trailer.  He's a fan without being _one of us_.  Saw the OT on video as a kid, but it was after all the hoopla had died down.  Then there's my father, who sat through the OT with me about a thousand times in my youth, is a reasonably sharp fellow, and enjoys the movies tremendously, but he didn't put it together entirely until Palpy's conversation with Anakin in AotC.  He thought Palpy "was up to something" in tPM, but didn't think he was Siddious.



I can see this.  If the director had had the presence of mind to tell the guy who plays Palpatine to deliver his Palpatine lines sincerely, instead of dripping with evil intent, I might not have so much of an issue with the lack of "phantom menace" in tPM.  As it is, Palpatine may as well be smirking at the camera, so blatant is his evil intent in every line he delivers.  "Have no fears, Queen Amidala, _I'll take care of everything_..."  Ugh.







> Remember, in the OT, the Emperor was "the Emperor" NOT "Emperor Palpatine."  You only saw that name in the novels and some of the other tie-ins.



True.  But the fact that the voices are the same, combined with Palpatine's "deliver every line as if you were the Emperor, despite the circumstances" acting choice (whether director-mandated or otherwise,) still makes it seem painfully transparent, IMO.







> Which makes it very, very hard to use in real life, because most of those angles are just as dangerous to you as to your opponent, if not more so.



Sure, if you aren't a _badass_ like Darth Maul. 


> It would be too dangerous to use, realistically, and the fact that you can only grip it in the middle takes away the primary advantage of a staff, reach.  Every staff technique I've ever seen relies upon grips that are impossible with that beast.



Perhaps to be more realistic, the middle grip should have been lengthened to allow for a longer grip.  Interestingly, in the game I mentioned earlier it often looked like the character avatars were gripping the double-bladed lightsaber dangerously close to the "live" ends, even to my untrained eye.  But still, as a non-staff fighter, the logic and execution were close enough to plausible for me to suspend disbelief and really enjoy Maul's fighting style.







> It was.  And I loved it when I first saw it, but once I took some martial arts it became increasingly irksome.  It's not so bad when he was 1-on-1 with one of them, but when he was fighting both jedi, there are too many moments where Ewan McGregor visibly hesitates to wait for Park to get his blade into place and what not.  It's just not possible to use that "weapon" efficiently.



Fair enough.  My father is a 20+ year firearms expert, and second-hand knowledge of firearms has ruined my suspension of disbelief regarding most treatments of guns and ammo in movies in a similar way.







> Well, sure.  He had to be bad-ass to overcome the severe limitations of that weapon.   I personally found him to be much more impressive when he was using only one side of the thing.  I REALLY wanted to see more of that first fight in the desert with Qui-gon.  The use of a single blade with that really long handle was cool.  And the additional leverage would be nice.



I agree, he was badass then too.  That's the shame of it, really.  I'd have liked to see the fighting prowess and the symbolic and stylistic greatness of the design combined with a character with the depth and staying power of Darth Vader.  Maul was perfect for a series long villain, and Vader replacing Maul would have been a great transition.







> Similarly, people keep complaining about Dooku's "bent lightsaber."  I don't see the problem.  It's not like the blade was curved.  And there is a precedent for curved handles in swords.  Arguably, it merely makes the lightsaber into a one-handed sword instead of it's typical sort of hand-and-a-half usage.



The bent lightsaber just struck me as stupid.  Nobody else has such a thing.  It is like Mace Windu's purple pimp-saber.  Only present to give the character something special, with no reasoning why that character should be the only one _with_ something special, and no effect aside from a cosmetic peculiarity.  That, and it did indeed remind me of a pistol-grip, which seems even more silly on a sword, _Final Fantasy_ imagery aside.







> <snip a description of bodiless swordfighting> This is why I don't believe in animated swords in D&D, either.  It is impossible to defeat them, with any sort of verisimilitude.



I understood what you meant in your previous post, even without the excellent visualisation in your latest.  My thougth is that it doesn't have to be done in the most utterly effective way that you describe.  In the game, the floating lightsabers behaved basically as if an invisible person were wielding them.  The same could have been done with Yoda, where he isn't necessarily controlling the blade as if it were completely independent, but merely using the Force to provide him with "invisible hands" that are stronger and taller than he is, but still operate as "hands" connected to him by an invisible thread of the Force.

Or it could work exactly as you claim, and Yoda could have thrown Dooku onto the defensive immediately, showing what a badass Yoda is in lightsaber combat for exactly the reasons you mention.  

In either case, it's not a big sticking point with me.  I did like the Gummy-Bear Yoda.  My only really small quibble was how quickly he goes from being Super-Ninja to weak-and-dying on Dagobah in only a few short years (relatively speaking for Yoda's race.)  All I can think of is that that swamp planet really did a number on his health.







			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Um.
> 
> They are most certainly popular but nowhere close to the best loved. That title is and will always belong to Darth Vader. He had lots of lines. They were pretty cool, too.



I agree completely.  That's what I hoped to have from Maul (who incidentally is not loved by me at all, exactly because his potential was so wasted.)  Thus far, the new trilogy has _nobody_ even close to Vader's stature in the original series, which is a shame imo.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 16, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> No, its just making sure the movies don't get an NC-17 rating.




Apology accepted


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Not that all our discussions have to be objective, but if Ankh was trying to establish a baseline for discussion, I guess I took it for granted that he was using successful to mean financially successful.




I only used successful because The Serge said they WEREN'T, so I took the objective point of view since that can actually be measured. But I still say that the subjective view can be supported by it.

I will continue to believe that the amount of success Star Wars movies have had financially(including the Prequels) shows that movies ARE successful in the more subjective elements. Bad movies do make money, but not the kind of money Star Wars movies have been making. If they are really so unsuccessful in telling a story, etc, nothing could boost the numbers as high as they are, beyond even the Lord of the Rings movies. Sure, seeing it multiple times, etc, WILL contribute, but not that much when you look at how financially successful the movies have been.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> A. Perfectly obvious that Lucas watched Kurosawa very carefully before directing Star Wars. The wipes, the use of music, the setting-the-scene shots -- all very Kurosawa.



Indeed.  He's never claimed otherwise.  Although I thought it mildly amusing on the commentaries for the DVD release of _Hidden Fortress_ that Lucas was there saying that he thought _Seven Samurai_ was a much better film  For what it's worth, I do too.  Still, filming techniques are a far cry from the claims I've heard that Star Wars is just a remake of _Hidden Fortress_ set in space.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> B. Arguable that _The Hidden Fortress_ serves as a pretty significant inspiration for _Star Wars_. The princess, the bickering menials, the swashbuckling hero, the final award-granting scene -- all very _Star Wars_-y. Of course Kurosawa's film doesn't have a Luke-type of character, and obviously that means you can't directly map one film to the other, but he'd obviously SEEN the picture and been strongly affected by it.



Yeah, the two bickering peasants are a straight borrow from _Hidden Fortress_, and he's never said otherwise.  In fact, Lucas has specifically confirmed that, including the concept of starting the movie off from their point of view.  Other than that, though, the correspondences start to become much more hazy.  There's not really all that many correspondences between the two princesses, for isntance, and it's not like a princess in danger is a unique plot element by any means.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> C. Perfectly obvious that Kurosawa exceeds Lucas on every single level. Things that in Kurosawa's hands are beautifully timed and structured moments are heavy-handed and facile in Lucas'.



I agree.  If only Kurosawa had the resources that Lucas had.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Lucas is a hack. He got spectacularly lucky with _Star Wars_ (the original film) and I don't believe for a second he ever planned anything other than that one film at first. It was only with the incredible success of the original picture that he even THOUGHT of doing more films. And I wish he'd never done a single sequel.



I totally agree.  He's obviously been a film school guy who was familiar with truly good work, and tried to imitate it in a very ham-fisted way.  Not only did he ape some of the filming techniques of Kurosawa, he also specifically copied elements from the old serials, from older movies (he said over and over again that he wanted an old fashioned Erich Korngold-esque soundtrack, which John Williams delivered magnificently).  I also think the idea that he had more than a very vague idea of story beyond the first movie (much less specific plans of any kind to make subsequent movies) is unbelievable.

I'm certainly glad he made more movies; I love Empire and I even quite like Jedi, and even though I can't even watch them straight through anymore, I still like Menace and Clones well enough for the good elements they do contain, and I'm quite excited for Sith in two months.  But, as I've said before, his talent really just isn't in directing or scripting, and he did just get lucky with Star Wars.  Empire (and to a lesser extent, Jedi) succeeds because his approach is more hands-off of the details, and the same can be said for Raiders of the Lost Ark, wherein he developed the characters and story, but Larry Kasdan wrote the screenplay and Spielberg directed.  With the exception of the first Star Wars (and American Grafitti, but that's such a different kind of movie that it probably doesn't mean anything), the more directly involved he's been, the worse the movie's turned out.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I agree that the climactic fight scene in Episode I is spectacular. But Lucas didn't direct that -- that was directed by the stunt team, I'm sure. And powered by Ewan, Liam and Ray's tremendous desire to create a fantastic fight scene and do whatever it took to accomplish.



Exactly why I'm hoping that Sith is the best by far of the new trilogy.  He'll be more hands off of the specifics of the fight scenes, they'll be more of them, and the actors are serious about trying to make those as good as they can.  If later, after I've seen it three or four times at the theater and own the DVD, all I can do is watch the fight scenes, I'm OK with that.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> The early drafts are irrelevant?  That's sort of like saying that Shakespeare's play is irrelevant to Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet.
> 
> Not buying it.



No, it's like saying Shakespeare's early drafts of Hamlet are irrelevent to the final draft of Hamlet.  And, for all intents and purposes, they are.  The final draft's the one that we got, not the earlier ones.  It's just that in this case, we have better documentation of the evolution of the final draft.

But either way, I don't see how comparing the early drafts of the script to _Hidden Fortress_ says anything at all about comparing the movies that actually got made instead to _Hidden Fortress_.  If you mean instead that early drafts more closely resembled Kurosawa's film, then that's one thing, and I won't really argue with you (since I don't remember many details of reading those early scripts online, assuming those are actually genuine.)  But watching the two movies side by side I can say that I think it's preposterous to say that one is simply a remake of the other, as it's just as easy to find substantial differences as it is to find superficial similarities.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> The bent lightsaber just struck me as stupid.  Nobody else has such a thing.  It is like Mace Windu's purple pimp-saber.  Only present to give the character something special, with no reasoning why that character should be the only one _with_ something special, and no effect aside from a cosmetic peculiarity.  That, and it did indeed remind me of a pistol-grip, which seems even more silly on a sword, _Final Fantasy_ imagery aside.




Many fencers prefer the pistol grip for their swords, as it gives a stronger hold on the weapon. I know some competitive fencers who refuse to use any other type of grip.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> Thanks.  That was bugging me.  I knew it had a name I should be remembering.
> 
> Can you expand at all on the functional significance of such a grip?  I've only ever used straight grips (escrima sticks, staves, and such).



Sorry, can't.  I've never actually used one, but my fencing instructor did, and just as a matter of course, we were familiar with the idea.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> That, sir, was very rude



I'm guessing he figured there weren't any real wookies around to get offended by it...


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 16, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I can see this.  If the director had had the presence of mind to tell the guy who plays Palpatine to deliver his Palpatine lines sincerely, instead of dripping with evil intent, I might not have so much of an issue with the lack of "phantom menace" in tPM.  As it is, Palpatine may as well be smirking at the camera, so blatant is his evil intent in every line he delivers.  "Have no fears, Queen Amidala, _I'll take care of everything_..."  Ugh.



Meh.  I didn't think it was that bad.  Slimy and manipulative, yes, but not dripping with "evil."  Just smarminess.  He sounds like a politician.   YMMV, and apparently does.



> Only present to give the character something special, with no reasoning why that character should be the only one _with_ something special, and no effect aside from a cosmetic peculiarity.



I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the grip was meant to reference Lee's history of fencing in movies, or something like that.  And the whole "lightsaber forms" thing they bandied about in the lead-up to Episode 2 came from that.  Perhaps our fencing geeks can tell us why a pistol grip would be appropriate to the reference?   Or maybe film geeks.  Did Chris Lee make a habit of using such swords in his earlier work?



> My thougth is that it doesn't have to be done in the most utterly effective way that you describe.  In the game, the floating lightsabers behaved basically as if an invisible person were wielding them.  The same could have been done with Yoda, where he isn't necessarily controlling the blade as if it were completely independent, but merely using the Force to provide him with "invisible hands" that are stronger and taller than he is, but still operate as "hands" connected to him by an invisible thread of the Force.



It's just better drama to have directly engaged combatants, IMO.  Plus, they already have "armchair swordsmen" (like myself  ) second-guessing their fighting.  Without spending some exposition on the limitations of levitative fighting like that, people would see it in action and say, "well, geez, why doesn't Yoda just do X"



> In either case, it's not a big sticking point with me.  I did like the Gummy-Bear Yoda.  My only really small quibble was how quickly he goes from being Super-Ninja to weak-and-dying on Dagobah in only a few short years (relatively speaking for Yoda's race.)  All I can think of is that that swamp planet really did a number on his health.



Well, he's not exactly spry most of the time in the prequels either.  After AotC, a friend of mine commented that he liked how Yoda used that walking stick "eventhough he clearly doesn't need it."  My reading was that he DOES need it.  His body really is old and failing, but he can draw on the Force, for short periods, to transcend his physical limitations.  "Luminous beings are we..."  It's probably very taxing for him, physically and spiritually, so he wouldn't want to do it regularly.  I have the notion in my head that he probably had to spend a lot of time meditating and recuperating from that brief fight.

Yes, I know I'm reading a lot into it.  I do that with most movies, literature, and everything.  Those little details are important to me for some reason.  Heck, I used to have complicated notions for how my wizards prepare their material components at the time of spell preparation.   Adds flavor.

My real gripe with that fight is that there was little dialogue between the principals (a fault of all the prequels, as some others here have already pointed out).  The fights with Vader in the OT were always punctuated with comments and taunts that upped the emotional ante.  The best we got in the new movies is Dooku's "Master Kenobi, you disappoint me..." bit.  That was a nice line.  I heard rumors at one point that there had been a line from Yoda when Dooku challenges him that went something like, "No interest in contests, do I have."  Which, from Yoda, is sort of like smack-talk: "I am above your childish contests... punk."   

Besides, I'd love to get more of the history between Yoda and Dooku.  Their apparent relationship does bring out another Fathers and Sons angle to the whole story.  Ooh!  Now I can play armchair psychologist, too!  "So, Georgie.  Tell me about your father..."


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, it's like saying Shakespeare's early drafts of Hamlet are irrelevent to the final draft of Hamlet.  And, for all intents and purposes, they are.



It's not a big deal, but I have to respectfully disagree.  Maybe it's just me, but the evolution of an idea (or a story) is fascinating.  And the early steps of the process can be very interesting when compared to the final product.  And it tells you something about the author/originator.



> But either way, I don't see how comparing the early drafts of the script to _Hidden Fortress_ says anything at all about comparing the movies that actually got made instead to _Hidden Fortress_.  If you mean instead that early drafts more closely resembled Kurosawa's film, then that's one thing, and I won't really argue with you (since I don't remember many details of reading those early scripts online, assuming those are actually genuine.)  But watching the two movies side by side I can say that I think it's preposterous to say that one is simply a remake of the other, as it's just as easy to find substantial differences as it is to find superficial similarities.



Cool.  We're not actually disagreeing much here.  I think the similarities are a little more noteworthy than you do, but "remake" does indeed stretch it well past the breaking point.  Lucas borrowed some elements from it the same way he borrowed elements from serials, mythology, and whatnot else.  I just felt like you were giving short shrift to the parallels that do exist.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 16, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> It's not a big deal, but I have to respectfully disagree.  Maybe it's just me, but the evolution of an idea (or a story) is fascinating.  And the early steps of the process can be very interesting when compared to the final product.  And it tells you something about the author/originator.



Well, just because it's irrelevent to the point I was making doesn't mean I don't think it's an interesting line of investigation in its own right!


			
				Canis said:
			
		

> Cool.  We're not actually disagreeing much here.  I think the similarities are a little more noteworthy than you do, but "remake" does indeed stretch it well past the breaking point.  Lucas borrowed some elements from it the same way he borrowed elements from serials, mythology, and whatnot else.  I just felt like you were giving short shrift to the parallels that do exist.



Sounds like it.  I was more nagging the guys who call Star Wars a remake, and make way too much of the parallels.  There certainly are parallels, and I'd be pretty dumb to blow them off since even Lucas acknowledged that they are there and he put them in on purpose.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 16, 2005)

Canis said:
			
		

> I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the grip was meant to reference Lee's history of fencing in movies, or something like that.  And the whole "lightsaber forms" thing they bandied about in the lead-up to Episode 2 came from that.  Perhaps our fencing geeks can tell us why a pistol grip would be appropriate to the reference?





Perhaps because he was... The Man with the Golden Gun.

Gun... pistol?


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 16, 2005)

I am not a Star Wars fan, either, inasmuch as I've only seen the movies once. However, I am a movie buff and an enormous D&D/RTS/General RPG nerd (I'm one of the people that was outraged when The Two Towers took a major and rather unscripted plot twist into Gondor). I've been taking notes and it's time for my term paper here.

As to the financial success of the movie: 
First, the original Star Wars came out at a time in which the movie industry was not nearly so competitive. Less movies, more time to see them; admittedly, less interest. However, the stunning (for the time) special effects and general coolness, along with Lucas' brilliant marketing skills, spread word of the movie fairly quickly, making it a parallel to Harry Potter. It has nothing to do with the horrible dialogue and more to do with the cool fight scenes. Nerds, whether we'd like to admit it or not, really enjoy seeing those pretty little lightsabers whirled around and watching hi-tech spaceships get blown to bits. That's why the fad has grown to a cult-ish fervor.
Basically, as long as it looks pretty, it'll make good money. Day After Tomorrow? The Drunken Master movies (ok, the humor was pretty good, but the plot sucked)? Titanic? Charlie's Angels? I mean, come on.
Also, remember the movie doesn't have to cost a lot to be an enormous seller. Napoleon Dynamite had to be one of the lowest-budget movies of all time, but look at the sales on that one.

As to Lucas' directing job, I'm sorry, but I have to revisit it. Personally, I'd agree that he was making a political statement....but he missed the whole point. There's a number of angles you could take with this; anti-warfare, political drama, etc., etc. He also tried, N.B., TRIED, to make the movie bigger than it was, especially (this has been brought up several times) with the ridiculous love story in AotC and general statements of city life (the cantina scene in one of the prequels, I believe it was the first one). He's just one of those directors that, while I admire his works, wasn't particularly good at his job in the first three movies, which were the most enjoyable for me because of Han Solo's biting presence. The second series seem to be mediocre, at best (I saw tPM when I was ten and refused to watch AotC). 

Don't mistake what I'm saying as that I don't like Star Wars. I'm too much of a sci-fi junkie to say otherwise. However, I'll repeat what many have already said; take that movie and find a co-director who can override Lucas' artistic vision. The movie could have been right up there with Casa Blanca, Vertigo, Gone With the Wind, and Citizen Kane. 

Some random snippets I have replies to:
As to the relevence of a first draft:
A quote comes to mind. I think it was Hemingway that said, "The first draft of anything is always $H|T."

Someone mentioned a director's quote who said, "Like that, only better." I think that was the director of the Shining, which I recently re-watched....Peter something-or-another, I can't remember his last name either.

As to kid superheros, let me cite a few VERY successful series and individuals which are being soaked up by kids of all ages (depending, of course, on the target age)
Goosebumps
Teen Titans
Pokemon
Spykids
X-Men (my favorite character was always Rogue)
The "Swiftly Tilting Planet" series
Matilda
Little Women
The Redwall series (yes, I know it features mice, but the principle is exactly the same)
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Legends of Zelda
Blue's Clues (Joe)
Hilary Duff, Lil Bow Wow, JoJo, and Lindsey Lohan
Harry Potter
The Incredibles
Those are just off the top of my head, I read a lot more than I did anything else as a kid. My point is, kids look up to older kids, not adults, and most of them are looking for confirmation, IMO, that the underdog really can save the day (I know I'm playing armchair psychologist, but stick with me here). For most children, anyone over the age of 25 is a "bad guy" until they reach the age of, let's say, 16 at the earliest, 19 at the latest. 

Anyways, those are my rants. Do not attack me as being incompetent because I haven't seen the movies fifteen billion times, as I will ignore those accusations, but feel free to critique/discuss any other part of the post.

Oh yes, and for all those who completely debunk Lucas, rather than ask that he improve upon his methods: go watch Plan 9 from Outer Space and come back and tell me how they compare. He's not quite the worst out there.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 17, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Don't mistake what I'm saying as that I don't like Star Wars. I'm too much of a sci-fi junkie to say otherwise. However, I'll repeat what many have already said; take that movie and find a co-director who can override Lucas' artistic vision. The movie could have been right up there with Casa Blanca, Vertigo, Gone With the Wind, and Citizen Kane.




I'm glad they're not. IMHO it's a whole different ballgame. Star Wars movies should be popcorn flicks - nothing more, nothing less.





			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm guessing he figured there weren't any real wookies around to get offended by it...




Of course there are real wookies. Peter Mayhew is real, right?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 17, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> Of course there are real wookies. Peter Mayhew is real, right?




Oh, he's definitely real. Though it can be kind of surprising to meet the guy and see just how big his hands are. Gives you a whole new respect for Wookies


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 17, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Basically, as long as it looks pretty, it'll make good money. Day After Tomorrow? The Drunken Master movies (ok, the humor was pretty good, but the plot sucked)?



"The Drunken Master movies" What, exactly are you referring to here? Jackie Chan's films? So there's _Drunken Master_ which he made in 1978 and stands as one of the turning points in action cinema (along with _Young Master_ a year or so later) -- when Jackie Chan figured out that he was actually a comedian rather than a martial artist. Sure, _Drunken Master_ isn't a classic, but it is right in line with literally hundreds of other HK films of that time featuring young talents trying to live up to Bruce Lee's legend.

Or perhaps you're referring to _Drunken Master II_, known in English as _The Legend of Drunken Master_? The greatest fight film of all time, bar none? The film that captures Jackie (one of the screen's enduring greats) at the peak of his creative and physical powers?

I mean, if you don't like _Drunken Master II_, you just flat-out don't like kung-fu movies. And there's nothing besides Chan's megawatt charisma and physical innovation to make _Drunken Master_ stand out among a hundred other films.

But NEITHER of these films can lay much claim to "looking pretty", so they seem awfully out of place in a list of films that made lots of money despite sucking because they looked pretty. They're not films that emphasize style over substance, unless you call Jackie Chan rolling through hot coals as "style over substance".

And they're hardly any sort of coherent series, those films. They have nothing in common with each other besides the main character -- who is one of China's most famous figures and appears in probably hundreds of movies.

But maybe you're referring to a different set of pictures entirely. I'm curious.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 18, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> "The Drunken Master movies" What, exactly are you referring to here?




Maybe LilMissKittyn is referring to the Star Wars prequels, as (s)he thinks of Lucas as the drunken master of Star Wars...

As (s)he said "the humor was pretty good, but the plot sucked", that summed up the prequels thus far for me.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 18, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> Maybe LilMissKittyn is referring to the Star Wars prequels, as (s)he thinks of Lucas as the drunken master of Star Wars...



That would explain a lot of things.  Lucas as a lush, though... hmmm...


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 18, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> "The Drunken Master movies" What, exactly are you referring to here?




Uh-oh, I think I hurt someone's feelings.

I guess I should reword what I think makes a good movie, I have a habit of phrasing myself so it doesn't come out quite right.

What makes a good movie is class. I didn't think that you could have something pretty and graceful without, well, grace. You yourself brought up a scene that I'd forgotten, with Jackie Chan rolling around on the coals.
Actually, I'm a big fan of good Kung Fu movies, and I really did enjoy the Drunken Master movies quite a bit (I watched them in rapid succession three years ago, at 14). And they do look VERY pretty. Kung Fu fighting attracts most people because the moves are just extraordinarily cool. I know it's not an exact parallel, but that's why Crouching Tiger was so successful, as well as Kenshin. People like Eastern fighting, because it has a great amount of control to the body, discipline, etc.

But that's neither here nor there. Do you actually have criticism pertaining to the content of the thread, or are you just posting because you wanted to defend your movie? Think about it first. I'd rather not hijack the thread, thanks.


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 18, 2005)

Oh, and sorry, I'll have to do a non sequitur here. I'll spoiler it.
@Flyspeck
[sblock] I'd be a little worried if a guy had the name Lil MISS Kittyn. [/sblock]


----------



## Empress (Mar 18, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Kung Fu fighting attracts most people because the moves are just extraordinarily cool. I know it's not an exact parallel, but that's why Crouching Tiger was so successful,



Actually, while I was impressed (empressed? ) by the choreography of CTHD, I did not  enjoy it (just) because of the fight scenes. There was a juxtaposition of star-crossed lovers, the story of the young girl forced into a life she did not want, the question whether having power automatically makes you fit to use it, and a warning that sometimes when you make mistakes, you cannot simply take them back.

It was a beautifully shot movie (not only in its fight scenes, by the way), but it was also textually rich. It was poetry not only in motion, but in its story, as well.

But I'm not a big fan of Jackie Chan, so I won't comment on that. I haven't even seen most of his movies.


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 18, 2005)

Eh, to each his own. That's one of the reasons I didn't like Hero so much (it's a new movie, worth seeing if you like that kind of plot). I mean, besides the fact (as my brother said) that "it leads up to the plot for the entire movie and never actually gets there."

I guess I'm just spoiled. You can have that kind of plot and make it work, but it's very difficult. There's a french movie, the title of which translates into "The Rules of the Game," that is arguably one of the best ten movies in history. It focuses on many of those aspects.

And then, of course, you have Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, A Midsummer Night's Dream...

Take your pick.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 18, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> @Flyspeck
> [sblock] I'd be a little worried if a guy had the name Lil MISS Kittyn. [/sblock]




[sblock]In RL? Maybe. On the net? No.[/sblock]


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 18, 2005)

Quite right.  I may have a guy's name on the Internet, but my real name is Mary Poppins, and I'm a practically perfect lady (in every way.)


----------



## myrdden (Mar 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Quite right.  I may have a guy's name on the Internet, but my real name is Mary Poppins, and I'm a practically perfect lady (in every way.)




Chim-chimmery-chim-chimmery!

(...because I have nothing else to add to the Great Debate of Our Time...)


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 18, 2005)

@Flyspeck
[sblock] Point taken. Sorry, I'm a conservative Christian, I tend to forget stuff like that. Back on topic? [/sblock]


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 18, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Uh-oh, I think I hurt someone's feelings.



Oh believe me, when you've hurt my feelings, you'll know. 

I'm just honestly confused (and still am) as to what criteria you're talking about. And to some degree what movies you're talking about since you seem to be creating a "series" where none exists. I will assume for now we're talking about the same films, though you've yet to confirm that.

If you're just saying movies can be loved for reasons beyond having a particular kind of story, then yeah, I agree whole-heartedly. I can't imagine anyone would disagree -- it's so obvious as to be facile. And it's hardly a new observation, even in this very thread.



			
				LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Do you actually have criticism pertaining to the content of the thread, or are you just posting because you wanted to defend your movie?



What do you care? I'll defend any movie and hijack any thread I like, thank you very much. If you think my post was inappropriate, feel free to report it to the mods (there's a "Report Bad Post" button just for that purpose). But if you just want to trade public barbs, ENWorld is not the place for that kind of behaviour.

Alternatively, if you're hoping I'll shut up and spare you difficult questions, well, my apologies. Inability to show mercy to those with their feet caught in their mouths is one of my many character flaws. Thank heavens for my rugged good looks and roguish charm.

Oh, and JD: Don't be a tease.


----------



## Empress (Mar 18, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Eh, to each his own. That's one of the reasons I didn't like Hero so much (it's a new movie, worth seeing if you like that kind of plot). I mean, besides the fact (as my brother said) that "it leads up to the plot for the entire movie and never actually gets there."
> 
> I guess I'm just spoiled. You can have that kind of plot and make it work, but it's very difficult. There's a french movie, the title of which translates into "The Rules of the Game," that is arguably one of the best ten movies in history. It focuses on many of those aspects.
> 
> ...



Why pick? Why not have them all?

Not every movie needs to be one of the ten best movies in history, you know?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Quite right.  I may have a guy's name on the Internet, but my real name is Mary Poppins, and I'm a practically perfect lady (in every way.)



 And suddenly, everything in the universe makes sense.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 19, 2005)

Yeah, here's the time me and my gaming group went LARPing in the park:





​I remember that being quite the jolly 'oliday.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 19, 2005)

See, THIS is what happens when J'Dawg and I have been going back and forth about Star Wars in five or six threads. We just need one thread for that kind of thing or the others start to border on disturbing...

Not that its a bad thing, of course.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Same thing with Lucas.  No one could tell him that Anakin in TPM was a bad actor.




I keep seeing these references to the fact that "Lucas needs less control", "Lucas is a twis", "Lucas is the weakest link", "Someone needs to tell Lucas he's wrong".

So let me get this straight... the man tells us half of a great story, and in the process creates a universe people will be fascinated with 100 years from now, AND in the process of that changes the way movies are made (Lucas and ILM revolutionized FX forever).

Now he's telling us the first half of the story, ON HIS OWN DIME.

Let me reiterate that, because to me, its a huge deal. He could have studio backing for this film. Heck any studio would jump at the chance to make these movies. But he has paid for every dime of every prequel himself.

But he needs to take a backseat and let someone else run the show?

Uh-huh. And maybe after that we can tell him what color to paint his house and get him to shave his head, and then maybe pick out what colleges his kids will attend. 

I have no problem with people saying the movies suck, although to me the films have all been of a kind (great fight scenes and FX, simple story) except for Empire Strikes Back.

But, to take it to the next level and say the man shouldn't run his own show, a show he created, seems pretty ass backwards to me. 

If someone paints their house blue, walking up to them and saying "you should have painted it green" is a little silly. 

Chuck


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 19, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Uh-huh. And maybe after that we can tell him what color to paint his house and get him to shave his head, and then maybe pick out what colleges his kids will attend.



I don't care for his house and kids. His haircut on the other hand...  




> I have no problem with people saying the movies suck, although to me the films have all been of a kind (great fight scenes and FX, simple story) except for Empire Strikes Back.



IIRC, someone already said that ESB might have ruined our perception of Star Wars.
Then again, the story of the prequels hasn't been _that_ simple (compared to IV and VI, and I'd say V too).




			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> If someone paints their house blue, walking up to them and saying "you should have painted it green" is a little silly.



Not if all other houses in that street are also painted blue. But that's just me.




			
				LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> @Flyspeck
> [sblock] Point taken. Sorry, I'm a conservative Christian, I tend to forget stuff like that. Back on topic? [/sblock]



[sblock] Don't worry, this thread is lost anyway. [/sblock]


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 19, 2005)

Oh, how I love to spark debate. Believe me, I'm famous in some threads for getting us hopelessly off topic.

@Barsoomcore
Jackie Chan? False ginseng? Mahjong (sorry, I can't speel)? Drunken boxing? I sincerely hope we're talking about the same movies. Otherwise, both of us are pretty lost. I know it's not a series, but it gets lengthy if you create a special group just for that movie, and everyone else caught what I meant.

I'm not talking about movies being just loved for reasons beyond the fact that they have tact and grace (considering most people don't, that would be a ridiculously shallow thing to say). It's more along the lines of something I didn't see anyone state and that certain people needed to be reminded of: movies can make money, even LOTS of money, even if they suck, or, in the case of most of the movies on the list (I don't watch crappy movies, thanks, so I don't know what bad ones to list) just lack a little bit of...tact.

Oh, and don't worry. Same here, to quote you:


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Inability to show mercy to those with their feet caught in their mouths is one of my many character flaws.



I guess we both think the same thing. Don't worry, I'll have hurt your feelings before this is over. I argue rather agressively. Wait, did I say argue? I meant discuss.  

A short reply (I swear) to Vigilance:
So Lucas makes these movies on his own dime. And he makes TONS of money off them, because they're famous. Guess where your money goes when you go to see the movie, or when your theatre buys the reel? That's right, straight to Lucas. So he's making a lot more money for making it with his own two cents.
In addition, most conceptualists really don't put a lot into making the film. Scriptwriters usually, to my understanding, stick around the movie scene and the director, well, directs. And good movies come out that way. Why can't Lucas sit back and let someone take charge?
I'm sorry, I forgot. It's because of his hopelessly large ego.
Just don't make him out to be a saint, he's not.


----------



## Villano (Mar 19, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I keep seeing these references to the fact that "Lucas needs less control", "Lucas is a twis", "Lucas is the weakest link", "Someone needs to tell Lucas he's wrong".
> 
> So let me get this straight... the man tells us half of a great story, and in the process creates a universe people will be fascinated with 100 years from now, AND in the process of that changes the way movies are made (Lucas and ILM revolutionized FX forever).
> 
> ...




So, what you're saying is that Jake Lloyd was a great actor and a perfect choice for Anakin? 

He used his own money?  Big deal.  How exactly does this place him above critism?  Lucas is the weakest aspect of the prequels.  We've seen it by his writing, direction, and casting.  It may shock you to learn that there are actually people who are hired to cast people.  The fact that Lucas poorly chose the lead of his film shouldn't be excused because he's using his own money.

If he decided to do all the FX on his own, using stop motion Play Dough characters, we can't say, "Maybe you should have other people doing that", because he used his own money?  



> and then maybe pick out what colleges his kids will attend.




Lucas wants his kids to go to College A.  They, however, don't like that school and would rather go to College B.  So, we shouldn't tell him that he shouldn't send his kids to College A because Lucas is paying for their education.  He shouldn't listen to anyone else ever, no matter who they are or how wrong he is, because he's using his own money?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 19, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> In addition, most conceptualists really don't put a lot into making the film.




That depends on your definition of conceptualist. Because the art department has a HUGE input on what goes into the film. Lucas just says "Yeah, make it look like that". These guys go out and DESIGN the whole thing. They deserve tons more credit than they get, heck they've even changed the movies at points when Lucas has loved unexpected designs.



> And good movies come out that way. Why can't Lucas sit back and let someone take charge?
> I'm sorry, I forgot. It's because of his hopelessly large ego.




And its also pretty ego filled to tell Lucas he SHOULD get someone else to do it because he's making HIS OWN MOVIES WRONG. No, he isn't a saint, but they are HIS. He really isn't making these movies for the fans, he's making them for himself. Selfish? Yep, but that sounds like a lot of artists I know. Other people may enjoy it, but in the end, you work on something because you feel you need to complete it.

Who's to say other people DON'T tell Lucas he's 'wrong' or should change things? Rick McCallum has a large amount of input into the movies. But just because there's someone around to take charge doesn't mean they'll do it right. Look at Jedi, Richard Marquand was the director, but Lucas had to step in and take a large amount of the responsibility because he knew what needed to be done.

I read a very good interview with one of the conceptual artists on RotS yesterday, and he makes a very good point:



> *Did you ever pay attention to the criticisms of the more zealous Star Wars fans about the film's look?*
> 
> No, you can’t. Until you make a multi-billion-dollar company and make your own movies and fund them yourself, don’t make a comment. The people who make the most comments are the ones who haven’t done anything—they’re sitting at home wishing they could work on these films. I mean, if George went to their house and asked them if they wanted to work on his movie, they’d say “Hell yeah!” But then they’re the most critical of his films. Making a film is really difficult—even just trying to write a script would take you a year to do. I don’t think a lot of people realize it.




The rest of the interview is here if anyone is interested. Very good stuff in the art direction.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 19, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> So, what you're saying is that Jake Lloyd was a great actor and a perfect choice for Anakin?




In Lucas' opinion, yes he was perfect for Anakin. And I can see why he believe that, as the kid had the innocent look to him, but was also a little more than that. He didn't bother me like he does some, but that doesn't mean he's a horrible actor. And in the end, all that matters is that LUCAS has chosen the actor HE believes will fit the part HE wrote for HIS movie.

Who's to say someone else that you picked because you thought they'd do better would end up a thousand times worse?



> He used his own money?  Big deal.  How exactly does this place him above critism?  Lucas is the weakest aspect of the prequels.  We've seen it by his writing, direction, and casting.  It may shock you to learn that there are actually people who are hired to cast people.  The fact that Lucas poorly chose the lead of his film shouldn't be excused because he's using his own money.




Using his own money doesn't place him above critism, but it definitely puts him on a level that other directors and writers aren't on. He's done thing all on his own. He picked the original cast on his own, so why shouldn't he do the same with the Prequels? Hindsight is twenty twenty, but at the same time, cast choices are subjective. What one person likes, another won't.

The problem comes when people state opinions as FACT, which is a fairly common occurence. You think that Jake Lloyd was a ppoor choice for the lead? Fine, but Lucas obviously didn't and he doesn't go around calling all of us for our opinions. 



> If he decided to do all the FX on his own, using stop motion Play Dough characters, we can't say, "Maybe you should have other people doing that", because he used his own money?




It could be argued that Lucas DOES do the effects all on his own, considering that he created ILM and effects as we know it...


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> He used his own money?  Big deal.  How exactly does this place him above critism?  Lucas is the weakest aspect of the prequels.  We've seen it by his writing, direction, and casting.  It may shock you to learn that there are actually people who are hired to cast people.  The fact that Lucas poorly chose the lead of his film shouldn't be excused because he's using his own money.




[alex trebek] Oooo. Wrong. I'm sorry. How much did you risk?[/alex trebek]

Um, actually, Lucas uses casting directors, they're credited and everything. 

He hired them.

You see how that works? He used his own money.

What's the line from the Producers about the first rule of Broadway... "Never use your own money".

And the second rule? NEVER USE YOUR OWN MONEY!

See, here's what makes Lucas spending his own money a big deal.

If enough people agreed with you that the movies were completely worthless, he would have LOST a couple hundred million per film. 

Other producer-directors, like Lucas' friend Francis Ford-Coppola lost their shirts spending their own money on movies. 

It's not the safe bet you think it is.

Unless you're the guy responsible for 7 (and now 10) of the top grossing movies of all time? I mean, American Graffitti, Star Wars 4-6, Indiana Jones 1-3... you might think the man who had a big hand in all those movies knew what he was doing wouldn't you?

And for the record, I never said you didn't have the right to criticize the movies because he made them with his own money. In fact it gives you the BEST way possible to criticize them.

Vote with your feet. Don't go. Please. Encourage all your friends not to go either. Make Lucas lose money and make him hock that chunk of the old Presidio naval base he just bought to be LucasFilms new HQ for 350 million.

Cause that will leave more seats for me on opening day 

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> A short reply (I swear) to Vigilance:
> So Lucas makes these movies on his own dime. And he makes TONS of money off them, because they're famous. Guess where your money goes when you go to see the movie, or when your theatre buys the reel? That's right, straight to Lucas. So he's making a lot more money for making it with his own two cents.
> In addition, most conceptualists really don't put a lot into making the film. Scriptwriters usually, to my understanding, stick around the movie scene and the director, well, directs. And good movies come out that way. Why can't Lucas sit back and let someone take charge?
> I'm sorry, I forgot. It's because of his hopelessly large ego.
> Just don't make him out to be a saint, he's not.




No, they don't make tons of money because they're famous.

Star Trek is one of the most FAMOUS sci-fi franchises of all time. But when the movies aren't good, people tend to not go see them in the same numbers.

See how that works?

And as for Lucas being a saint. Well I never said that did I?

What I did say is that its extraordinarily gutsy for someone to put all their own money into a project and gives them EVERY right to do it exactly the way they want. 

And its not a safe bet. Anyone remember Gardens of Stone? Famous book. FF Coppolla spent his own money to get it made into a movie. Famous Director. Movie bombs, Coppolla loses a LOT of money.

Again, this doesn't make Lucas a saint. I even went OUT OF MY WAY to say you had the right to criticize him.

In fact, him using his own money gives you the ULTIMATE way to show him how you feel. Don't go. 

Don't go see it in the theater, don't go buy the DVD and watch it over and over to point out in detail to me how bad it sucks.

You see, if enough people do THAT, then Lucas would lose money. Which would mean he'd have to use a studio for his films. Which would give you your dream of him having to share power.

Chuck


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 19, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> No, they don't make tons of money because they're famous.
> 
> Star Trek is one of the most FAMOUS sci-fi franchises of all time. But when the movies aren't good, people tend to not go see them in the same numbers.
> 
> See how that works?




That's what I've tried to say about ten or fifteen times in this thread already. You'll be lucky if it gets through.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 19, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> [alex trebek] What's the line from the Producers about the first rule of Broadway... "Never use your own money".
> 
> And the second rule? NEVER USE YOUR OWN MONEY!



1st rule of Broadway: Don't talk about Broadway.





> Star Trek is one of the most FAMOUS sci-fi franchises of all time. But when the movies aren't good, people tend to not go see them in the same numbers.
> 
> See how that works?



No, as Star Trek is not _the_ most famous sci-fi _movie_ franchise.


----------



## Villano (Mar 19, 2005)

Just because someone has enough money to do something doesn't mean that they're good at it.  If Madonna produces a film and acts in it, God forbid we criticize her acting ability.  It's her money, we can't say it's bad!

My problem is that people are defending Lucas based on his money.  It's summed up best by that quote from the interview Ankh-Morpork Guard posted:



> Until you make a multi-billion-dollar company and make your own movies and fund them yourself, don’t make a comment.




Because only rich people can have opinions.   




			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> And for the record, I never said you didn't have the right to criticize the movies because he made them with his own money.




No, but you did respond to my criticism:



> Anyway, I have to agree that Lucas is ironically the weakest element of the new films. I think it's a combination of not being a "people director", being secretive, and, frankly, not having anyone around him to say that something is a bad idea.




By saying:



> Now he's telling us the first half of the story, ON HIS OWN DIME.
> 
> Let me reiterate that, because to me, its a huge deal. He could have studio backing for this film. Heck any studio would jump at the chance to make these movies. But he has paid for every dime of every prequel himself.




I said he wasn't good at directing people, didn't give his actors complete scripts (which hampered their performances), and that he basically needed an editor to gauge his ideas.  You countered my beliefs with a post about his money.

And talk about being misquoted...



> If enough people agreed with you that the movies were completely worthless, he would have LOST a couple hundred million per film.




Where exactly did I say that his movies were completely worthless?  



> Unless you're the guy responsible for 7 (and now 10) of the top grossing movies of all time? I mean, American Graffitti, Star Wars 4-6, Indiana Jones 1-3... you might think the man who had a big hand in all those movies knew what he was doing wouldn't you?




You're absolutely right.  He's a great producer.  In fact, I never said he wasn't.  I'd say he was a better producer than director.   That's kind of part of my point.

For all the people saying that they aren't telling people that they can't critize Lucas because he used his own money, it seems like a lot of people are defending him from criticism by talking about his money.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Just because someone has enough money to do something doesn't mean that they're good at it.  If Madonna produces a film and acts in it, God forbid we criticize her acting ability.  It's her money, we can't say it's bad!




Im only going to say this one more time.

THE FACT THAT HE SPENDS HIS OWN MONEY GIVES YOU THE PERFECT WAY TO CRITICIZE HIM BY NOT BUYING HIS PRODUCT.

Did you get it that time?

I explicitly stated in every post that, of course, you have the right to say anything you want. Criticize away. Please. There, that's three times. You have my permission to criticize him, ab shalom, go with God my son. Ok? Ok.



> You're absolutely right.  He's a great producer.  In fact, I never said he wasn't.  I'd say he was a better producer than director.   That's kind of part of my point.




He's not JUST a great producer.

He wrote American Graffitti, a movie that I think is fantastic.

He wrote Star Wars. Nuff said.

He directed American Graffitti and he directed Star Wars



> For all the people saying that they aren't telling people that they can't critize Lucas because he used his own money, it seems like a lot of people are defending him from criticism by talking about his money.




Actually I said this first, which you completely ignored:



> I keep seeing these references to the fact that "Lucas needs less control", "Lucas is a twis", "Lucas is the weakest link", "Someone needs to tell Lucas he's wrong".
> 
> So let me get this straight... the man tells us half of a great story, and in the process creates a universe people will be fascinated with 100 years from now, AND in the process of that changes the way movies are made (Lucas and ILM revolutionized FX forever).




You know, the apart about him CREATING the universe. He had the idea. He wrote, produced, directed Star Wars, everyone told him it was a lousy idea and people will still be telling stories about the Force 100 years from now.

And THEN I mentioned that, oh by the way, he's paying for it. And like it or not, that DOES factor into how much control you have over things in the real world.

If I ask my Dad to send me to college and he wants me to major in Engineering, then I have two choices. I can major in Engineering, or I can pay my own way to college.

See how that works? Being willing to pay the bills gives me more choices. 

A lot of the criticism I see of Lucas amounts to "That isn't the way I would have made the movies".

So go make your own movie. Lucas made the movie. That was his part of the equation. OUR part is either to see it or not see it, and then like it or not like it.

Chuck


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 19, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Because only rich people can have opinions.




Remember, though, that Lucas WASN'T rich when he started this out.

And really, the point is that its a lot easier to critize these movies than it is to MAKE them. Get out there and do it, and do a better job than Lucas your way, then we can talk. But until then, most of this "He's a bad director" "His casting was horrible" etc is all just baseless opinions with no meat behind them. Sure, opinion has some weight, but if they WERE SO BAD, Lucas would be feeling it by LOSING money on them.



> I said he wasn't good at directing people, didn't give his actors complete scripts (which hampered their performances), and that he basically needed an editor to gauge his ideas.




This kind of thing always bothers me. How do you know there ISN'T an editor gauging his ideas?



> For all the people saying that they aren't telling people that they can't critize Lucas because he used his own money, it seems like a lot of people are defending him from criticism by talking about his money.




My points about money are more that the fact that he keeps MAKING money on these movies proves he isn't as bad a director as some cry he is. Otherwise, he'd feel the impact and people wouldn't see the movies. Yes, bad movies make money...but bad movies DON'T make the kind of money Star Wars movies have made.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Mar 19, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Many fencers prefer the pistol grip for their swords, as it gives a stronger hold on the weapon. I know some competitive fencers who refuse to use any other type of grip.



Thanks for this info.  It's possible it may change my entire opinion of that pistol grip.

It's been a while since I watched AotC.  But I don't recall Dooku using a fencing style of swordplay in the movie.  Did he?  Or did he use the usual longsword/kendo type style that most of the Jedi do?

If Dooku was actually fencing with his blade, then I'll have to amend my entire take on that bent lightsaber.  Otherwise, it's still silly.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2005)

I keep seeing people mention Lucas having total control as if its purely a product of his being intergalactic warlord (or whatever his title is these days) of a global financial empire.

But I seem to recall that Lucas wrote, directed and edited a movie called American Grafitti back in 73. This movie was shot documentary style and used MTV-style music video scenes, set to music from the 50's for god's sake. Everyone thought he was nuts.

Yet the movie was a huge success, and I do not mean financially. This film was nominated for 5 academy awards and gave Lucas the clout to try something even more crazy.

He would make a science fiction film in the vein of Flash Gordon and Planet of the Apes.

Only he would do it in a way no one had ever done sci-fi. The FX would be state of the art. The sound would be state of the art. When no company could produce what he wanted, Lucas started two companies: ILM and Sprocket Studios (later changed to Skywalker Sound).

Note to those who thing money has NOTHING to do with this equation, starting companies costs MONEY. Lucas, at a time when he had very little money, was already willing to spend his own money to achieve his VISION. (See how money isn't all about money? Its about art too. This is American Way. Capalism in action.). 

But we're talking about artistic success.

So he makes this movie, which he again writes, and directs and edits. And this time he produces it too. 

Then he shops it around for a studio, and no one wants it. In fact, they hate it. They tell him it sucks. 

Finally, desperate to get the movie into which he has sunk so much of his time, energy, vision, reputation and (wait for it) money, produced, Lucas agrees to a deal with 20th Century Fox.

He will receive NO SALARY for this film. 

Instead he will receive 40% of the profits, the complete rights to all sequals and the complete rights to all merchanidsing.

Had the movie failed as EVERYONE (but George Lucas) predicted, he would have been penniless. He had sunk all the money he made on American Grafitti (his first and only real comercial film) into a labor of love.

This is called, vision, and big brass ones. 

And THAT is why he has the right to make these movies any damn way he wants.

It's his house, and he will paint it whatever color he wants, because he built it with his own hands. When it was going up everyone told him it was ugly and that it would fall down before he could move in.

But it didn't, and now that everyone sees how beautiful and sturdy it is, they want him to paint it yellow.

Chuck


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 19, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Thanks for this info.  It's possible it may change my entire opinion of that pistol grip.
> 
> It's been a while since I watched AotC.  But I don't recall Dooku using a fencing style of swordplay in the movie.  Did he?  Or did he use the usual longsword/kendo type style that most of the Jedi do?
> 
> If Dooku was actually fencing with his blade, then I'll have to amend my entire take on that bent lightsaber.  Otherwise, it's still silly.



 He does use a pseudo fencing style. But its still altered a bit to be more lightsabery than completely fencing.


----------



## Villano (Mar 19, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Im only going to say this one more time.
> 
> THE FACT THAT HE SPENDS HIS OWN MONEY GIVES YOU THE PERFECT WAY TO CRITICIZE HIM BY NOT BUYING HIS PRODUCT.
> 
> ...




Yes, you state it in every post.  And then you proceed to bring up the fact that Lucas produced his own films and "THAT is why he has the right to make these movies any damn way he wants" as if that invalidates my criticism.  

He can make any film he wants and I'm free to talk about what I think are his weaknesses as a film maker.  And, at no point have I said that you don't have a right to like them.   Buy a thousand copies of the DVDs, I really don't care.  I don't know why you're so obsessed with my opinion of them.

I could be belligerent and say, "Did you get it that time?", but that would be rude.

I'm done with this thread.  Post away, but I'm not going to bother reading it anymore.  It's pointless to respond since it's just going to go around in circles.  Clearly, any work I've done in the television industry is no match for your mighty house painting analogies...


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 19, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Using his own money doesn't place him above critism, but it definitely puts him on a level that other directors and writers aren't on. He's done thing all on his own. He picked the original cast on his own, so why shouldn't he do the same with the Prequels? Hindsight is twenty twenty, but at the same time, cast choices are subjective. What one person likes, another won't.
> 
> The problem comes when people state opinions as FACT



Let me explain something. I'm an artist AND a conceptualist.

I'm going into college as a computer programmer/musician/teacher, and I'm arguably the best flutist (for the high school level) in the state, which makes me good enough to be professional. I've taken art lessons since I was six, danced since I was four, been writing as a hobby since I was seven, and I've been acting for three years. I think I know a little something about concept creation. I know my opinions aren't fact, but at least I have more to back them up than, "Oh, well, the movies made a lot of money."

I already SAID that bad movies can make a lot of money. I also, if you actually read the whole thread like I did before posting, I said that Lucas isn't the worst. In fact, I accentuated it by making it the last thing in my post. And yes, I know this wasn't directed at me, but the same thing has been said in replies to me and I thought I'd make it absolutely clear for those of you who seem to not be able to read.

Please don't reply to my post without examples. It just makes you look silly.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And really, the point is that its a lot easier to critize these movies than it is to MAKE them. Get out there and do it, and do a better job than Lucas your way, then we can talk.
> 
> My points about money are more that the fact that he keeps MAKING money on these movies proves he isn't as bad a director as some cry he is.




Someone posted something about "don't criticize unless you've done it yourself." 

I've made movies. Not professionally, but I know how to handle a camera. But you don't have to make movies to know good movies. You just have to a) have eyes, b) have ears, c) have some kind of intellectual refinement, and d) know what to look for. It's not so hard, it just takes a little time and effort. 

I know enough about psychology to pass a junior-year college exam on mood disorders (actually, that's an area I know less in than the others; my specialty is anxiety disorders) I can usually accurately diagnose a person long before they tell me what the actual diagnosis is. Does that give me the right to hand them a pill bottle? No. But it does give me the right to give them some advice, as a friend, on how to help them. 

I hope that makes sense. Read it again if it doesn't.

One more thing. I've seen Episodes 1, 4, 5, and 6 ONCE. Read that again, ONCE. I'm not a Star Wars fan, though I am a gamer and a major sci-fi fan. I do know movies. I know how hard it is to make them, to produce them, etc, etc. There's people out there that can do it. Lucas is close, he just needs someone else to be there to "edit" his works. Think of it as a kind of newspaper system; he's the journalist. 

Oh yeah, and I enjoyed American Graffiti. I really did; Lucas has some talent. And he did create a magical world that people will emulate for a long time. I'm asking about improving, not deleting. There's a difference. Don't let your idolation keep you from seeing otherwise.


----------



## Berandor (Mar 19, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Let me explain something. I'm an artist AND a conceptualist.
> 
> I'm going into college as a computer programmer/musician/teacher, and I'm arguably the best flutist (for the high school level) in the state, which makes me good enough to be professional. I've taken art lessons since I was six, danced since I was four, been writing as a hobby since I was seven, and I've been acting for three years



That explains so much.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 19, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Let me explain something. I'm an artist AND a conceptualist.




So am I.



> I'm going into college as a computer programmer/musician/teacher, and I'm arguably the best flutist (for the high school level) in the state, which makes me good enough to be professional. I've taken art lessons since I was six, danced since I was four, been writing as a hobby since I was seven, and I've been acting for three years. I think I know a little something about concept creation.




Good for you, I've done a bunch of things too, but they have nothing to do with this. This isn't an "I know more about art that you do" thread. I never liked that crap when I was in High School, and I'm not about to get involved in another one of those now.



> I know my opinions aren't fact, but at least I have more to back them up than, "Oh, well, the movies made a lot of money."




What more do you have? There's only really one non-subjective way to judge the success of a movie, and that's by how much money it makes. Over and over, people have said that Lucas is a bad director, can't do this, can't do that, etc etc. Well, if it was so bad, the movies wouldn't be AS successful as they are. THAT is my point.

I HAVE brought up many other things, but when I see people commenting on how Lucas is a bad director, inept, bad at casting, and the like, I'll point them to the fact that if he was so bad, Star Wars would not be making the kind of money they are. Bad movies DO make money. But, yet again I'll say it, bad movies do NOT making the kind of money that Star Wars films do. If they were so bad, people wouldn't go and see them on the scale that they do.



> I already SAID that bad movies can make a lot of money. I also, if you actually read the whole thread like I did before posting, I said that Lucas isn't the worst. In fact, I accentuated it by making it the last thing in my post.




I did read the whole thing. Heck, I've been with this entire thread since the beginning. Why? I'm bored and I love the Star Wars movies. So I'll stick here and stand my ground just as those who are against it will. I also never claimed you said Lucas is the worst.



> And yes, I know this wasn't directed at me, but the same thing has been said in replies to me and I thought I'd make it absolutely clear for those of you who seem to not be able to read.




I can read just fine, thank you. This doesn't need to be brought down to insults just because I don't agree with you. You are the one who accussed Lucas of having a huge ego, which, IMO, was a sign of you showing off your own ego. True or not, that was how it was read by me.



> Please don't reply to my post without examples. It just makes you look silly.




We're on a D&D messageboard. On the internet. Talking about Star Wars. To make it worse, we're talking about George Lucas. We all look silly already.

What kind of examples would you like me to present?



> I've made movies. Not professionally, but I know how to handle a camera. But you don't have to make movies to know good movies. You just have to a) have eyes, b) have ears, c) have some kind of intellectual refinement, and d) know what to look for. It's not so hard, it just takes a little time and effort.




There is a HUGE difference, though. I've made movies, too. Heck, I spent a huge amount of time in High School jumping between the TV Production classroom and the Art Department. But the problem is that 'good' and 'bad' are subjective.

Its EXTREMELY pretentious to claim that you have to have 'some kind of intellectual refinement' to know what a good movie is. What makes a good movie is different for EVERYONE. Perhaps I should just keep using the terms successful and unsuccessful, but I'm lazy and 'bad' and 'good' are easier to type. The point is that there are no other ways to judge movies without being subjective.

Maybe you do know what a good movie is. But what if I don't like that movie? Does that mean you're better than me because you know what to look for and I don't? Or maybe you're just smarter than I am, and I couldn't possibly understand what a good movie is.



> I know enough about psychology to pass a junior-year college exam on mood disorders (actually, that's an area I know less in than the others; my specialty is anxiety disorders) I can usually accurately diagnose a person long before they tell me what the actual diagnosis is. Does that give me the right to hand them a pill bottle? No. But it does give me the right to give them some advice, as a friend, on how to help them.




Good for you. But again...why does that matter here? In this case, you're example doesn't really fit because Lucas hasn't called you and asked for your advice. If he did, sure, go ahead and suggest. While Lucas may be the person to have the final word on things, there ARE people that have input in it. They aren't all just him, despite what some people seem to believe.



> I do know movies. I know how hard it is to make them, to produce them, etc, etc. There's people out there that can do it. Lucas is close, he just needs someone else to be there to "edit" his works. Think of it as a kind of newspaper system; he's the journalist.




Wait...so Lucas is only close to knowing how to make movies even though pretty much everything he's been involved in have been HUGE successes and well received by the movie going public AS A WHOLE, and yet you know how to do things right? Get out there now! Go make us some good movies!

Lucas is definitely well beyond 'close'. If he was just 'close' Star Wars wouldn't be what it is, plain and simple.

And I'm amazed that you know people don't edit his works! Have you been there to see? All of these claims by many, many people that Lucas needs help in one form or another and yet no one seems to think that he might actually HAVE that help. The art department has given a look to Lucas' vision, Nick Gillard(stunt guy) has designed the ligthsaber duels beyond simple words on the page, and a huge amount of other people are involved in these films. 

These are not just George Lucas movies. He has the final word, but how can anyone say that he hasn't been persuaded to change things based on what others working with him have suggested?



> Oh yeah, and I enjoyed American Graffiti. I really did; Lucas has some talent. And he did create a magical world that people will emulate for a long time. I'm asking about improving, not deleting. There's a difference. Don't let your idolation keep you from seeing otherwise.




I've never once said the movies were perfect. Yes, there are things that can be done better. But they aren't. Why? Because its how Lucas wants it done. And you know what? I enjoy them. Despite anything that may be wrong with them, I still enjoy them. Not because I idolize them, because many people that 'idolized' the movies have been turned off by the Prequels. I simply enjoy the movies.

I've never said there's anything wrong with NOT liking them, either. But saying that Lucas is doing things 'wrong' and needs more input is a completely different step to take.


----------



## Berandor (Mar 19, 2005)

Oh, and just because this thread is already full of tangents:



> don't criticize unless you've done it yourself.



This way of thinking is fundamentally flawed and downright silly. It means I can't say my father is a good cook just because I've never cooked, or that his wife is an abysmal cook. 

Or I can't say that Ashlee Simpson is an awful singer (without computer aid), just because I don't have a hit single.

The concept of critically and objectively assessing quality has nothing to do (or not much, at least) with your own ability to do so. 

Just because I'm not a baskeball player doesn't mean I can't appreciate Michael Jordan.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 19, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Just because I'm not a baskeball player doesn't mean I can't appreciate Michael Jordan.




That's an exception.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Just because I'm not a baskeball player doesn't mean I can't appreciate Michael Jordan.




This is true.

However people in this thread are going WAY beyond that level. What they are doing is tantamount to sending Jordan a letter that reads like this:

Dear Mr. Jordan, I played basketball in junior high, and I have some comments. 

First, post up more. You're a big guard, use that size. This whole high rising dunking thing just doesn't really show off you're pure skill.

And late in the game, pass the ball. Dont rely so much on your self! Trust your teammates!

Lastly, that whole tongue hanging out thing is just showboating. Contain your ego.

{Weeks later when no reply has come in and Jordan hasn't changed his style of play.}

God what an egomanic Jordan is! Sure he wins almost all the time, but I'm a PURIST.

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Yes, you state it in every post.  And then you proceed to bring up the fact that Lucas produced his own films and "THAT is why he has the right to make these movies any damn way he wants" as if that invalidates my criticism.




No it doesn't invalidate your criticism. Or mine. Or the other 5 Billion opinions out there in the naked city.

I just makes all 5 Billion or so opinions equally second to the ONE guy whose opinions matter more. The boss. The guy CREATING. 



> He can make any film he wants and I'm free to talk about what I think are his weaknesses as a film maker.  And, at no point have I said that you don't have a right to like them.   Buy a thousand copies of the DVDs, I really don't care.  I don't know why you're so obsessed with my opinion of them.




I responded to you, you responded to me, I responded back. That's what this whole message board thingie is for isnt it? I don't think you're obsessed with my opinions lol. I thought we were having a discussion along with all the others in this thread. I have responded to others' statements and posted thoughts of my own. 



> I'm done with this thread.  Post away, but I'm not going to bother reading it anymore.  It's pointless to respond since it's just going to go around in circles.  Clearly, any work I've done in the television industry is no match for your mighty house painting analogies...




Actually it was George Lucas' analogy, I just liked it. 

And I'm a professional writer who hasn't held a day job in over 3 years. Are we equals again now?

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 19, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, and I enjoyed American Graffiti. I really did; Lucas has some talent. And he did create a magical world that people will emulate for a long time. I'm asking about improving, not deleting. There's a difference. Don't let your idolation keep you from seeing otherwise.




Wow, if Lucas is close, a guy who had 12 Academy Award nominations for his first three movies and who won a Thalberg (the Academy Award for lifetime achievment) (and even Phantom Menace somehow snagged three Oscar nods) is just close... well, Im not sure we have the same definition of "close".

Chuck


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 20, 2005)

Lots of stuff I like doesn't make lots of money. Lots of stuff I think is stupid and peurile makes huge amounts of money. I've never been able to find a connection there, because plenty of stuff I like does make lots of money, and plenty of stuff I hate crashes and burns.

Because of this, I use two separate ideas -- "popular" and "good" -- and I distinguish between them. "Good" is stuff I like, stuff that provides me with thrills, be they intellectual, spiritual or physical. "Popular" is stuff that lots of people like, and that tends to make lots of money thereby.

Claiming that my opinion on the "good"-ness of something is more or less invalidated by its "popular"-ness is just flat-out silly.

So when I say that Star Wars movies suck and that Lucas is a sucky director and worse writer, pointing out that millions of people go to these movies and watch them doesn't do anything to convince me otherwise (that being a "popular" versus "good" argument). Pointing out things Lucas did and explaining why they're good is a MUCH better approach, IF your goal is to try and provide me with an understanding of your position.

Likewise, the facts about how a movie was financed simply don't enter into any discussion of that movie's merits. Crappy art gets financed in ways every bit as crazy and courageous as great art.

I guess for some people, saying that Lucas is a crappy director is offensive. For that I am sorry, as I have no wish to offend anyone. But I won't say that he's a good director, no matter how popular his films are or how he finances them. Because those facts have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of his films.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Mar 20, 2005)

I think the problem here is that some people are trying to compare the work Lucas did when he was 'young and hungry' to the work he's doing now.  Sure American Graffiti was good, Star Wars through RotJ was great even.  The man's done some fantastic stuff (and as many know, had a more hands-off approach to TESB and ROTJ), no doubt about that.  But are we discounting the fact that with all these successes he's become more insulated from the public, the pedistal he sits on has risen ever higher as the legend of Star Wars has grown without any efforts from him (thus elevating his own status even when he was either idle or doing something else)?  This is not the same man who did American Graffiti, or even the first three Star Wars movies.  This is George Lucas the mega-legend, and that kind of thing does affect people.  The odds are very good that every single person working on the prequels is in complete awe of him (Samuel L. Jackson and a few other of the big-name actors have stated at one time or another that they were reduced to slack-jawed fan-boys to be on board, in effect.  What do you think the assistant editor or conceptual FX guy was feeling to be working with GEORGE LUCAS on STAR WARS felt?), so I think the odds that anyone walked up to him and said "Mr. Lucas, I think this is going in a bad direction here, it's hurting the overall production of the movie in the biggest franchise of all time that you're helming and paying for all on your own" are pretty minimal.  
I don't doubt for a moment that Lucas had (maybe even has) great talent.  But I see many signs that his position and prestige have clouded it greatly, and I think he lost touch with this particular franchise before he began making these prequels.

And really, of course they're making money.  Star Trek movies can fail for being bad, we've had multiple TV series and multiple movies, it's not like as if we're all looking back at nothing but the original Trek series and saying "My god, Roddenberry's making 3 Trek movies after all this time!!  And..  wait..  that's not right...  oh hell!"  No, we have the original series, TNG, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise, and the movies..  we've been getting our fix all along, and so aren't so hungry for something new to bring it back and make it shine again like it did when it broke out of the threatres and swept us away.  Star Wars, on the other hand..  is kind of in that position.  It is my firm belief that Lucas could have very well made these movies in his garage with leggo people and they would have made money.


----------



## Orius (Mar 20, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> This actually is what bothered me most about tPM.  _Everything_ is _exactly_ as it seems.  There's no "phantom menace" at all.  Every villain is clearly defined.  There is absolutely zero subtlety in the plot at all.  Every line Palpatine delivers is filled with evil design, regardless of whether he's wearing his Emperor outfit or not.  And when Yoda asks in the end whether the apprentice or the master was killed, there's absolutely no question that the apprentice was the one who got whacked.




It's called dramtic irony.  The audience knows what's going on when the protagonists don't.  I really don't see a problem with Lucas taking this approach anyway.  It's not exactly a secret that Palpatine started out as a galactic senator; although he's never mentioned by name in the original movies themselves, the name does appear in the noveliztion for the original movie, and is well known to the fans.  So while on screen he acts like a good guy, we all know what a bastard he is, because after all we've seen him in all his badness in Jedi.  The whole "phantom menace" refers to the hidden threat posed by the Sith that have caught the Jedi by surprise, and which for them goes unresolved at the end of the movie.  It doesn't help that at the end of TPM, their greatest enemy has become the highest ranked official in the Republic they're sworn to protect without them even knowing it.

The thing about TPM when compared to the original trilogy, particularly the first Star Wars movie, is that TPM is meant as part of a greater whole.  Taken on its own it seems a bit weak, but I think it really needs to be viewed in the context of all the other movies, and we won't be able to do that completely for another 2 months.  The original Star Wars, while it had a backstory in Lucas' mind, stands fairly well enough on its own.




> And speaking of Darth Maul...what a waste of a great character design.  When the new trilogy was first announced, I didn't think Lucas could create a villainous image as striking and symbolically powerful as Darth Vader.  Then comes Darth Maul, and I'm pleasantly surprised.  The Devil to Vader's Death.  The imagery was powerful, the potential symbolism impressive.  And then the character is wasted in a cheap death, and we get Count Dooku, the old guy with a bent lightsaber...?!




Yeah, Darth Maul is cool as far as appearance and style, but he really doesn't do much of anything to be seen as a threat.  And he gets, what, one line in the entire film?


----------



## Orius (Mar 20, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And below all of THAT are the Lord of the Rings Movies so NYAH! NYAH NYAH!
> 
> Interesting to see those with the numbers adjusted for inflation.




Take into account that many of the highest films on the list are older movies that have had decades to make money.  And a lot of the old classics were often rereleased to theaters, which gives them more opprotunity to make money.  Many of the results on the adjusted list frankly aren't that surprising.  

OTOH, the _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy hasn't even been out for 5 years.  And with technology like VCRs and more recently DVD players and such, newer movies aren't as likely to be rereleased to cinemas, when people can just rent or buy a copy when they feel like watching them.  So overall ticket sales for a more recent film will be lower, even if the money made if higher.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 20, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> Take into account that many of the highest films on the list are older movies that have had decades to make money.  And a lot of the old classics were often rereleased to theaters, which gives them more opprotunity to make money.  Many of the results on the adjusted list frankly aren't that surprising.
> 
> OTOH, the _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy hasn't even been out for 5 years.  And with technology like VCRs and more recently DVD players and such, newer movies aren't as likely to be rereleased to cinemas, when people can just rent or buy a copy when they feel like watching them.  So overall ticket sales for a more recent film will be lower, even if the money made if higher.



 Even so...

Haha!


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 20, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> It's more along the lines of something I didn't see anyone state and that certain people needed to be reminded of: movies can make money, even LOTS of money, even if they suck



Are you referring to specific people in this thread? Are you afraid to mention them by name? That's unfortunate. Or are you referring to people NOT in this thread? In which case posting in this thread seems like a curious strategy.


			
				LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Don't worry, I'll have hurt your feelings before this is over. I argue rather agressively.



Okay, I'll cease worrying on that score. And feel free to step up the aggression, there. I'm expecting big things.


----------



## Berandor (Mar 20, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> This is true.
> 
> However people in this thread are going WAY beyond that level. What they are doing is tantamount to sending Jordan a letter that reads like this:
> (snip)



Well, nobody's writing a letter to Lucas, is he?

But you don't know how often I've sat in front of the TV and argued that Kobe Bryant should pass more, and shouldn't force so many shots. I've argued about the correct path of politics, about design decisions in role-playing books (WotC should have made Toughness better!), about screenplays to movies, and more.

It's fun! Tellung us such arguments are pointless is beside the point - we know it's pointless. It's still fun to try and decipher the weaknesses we perceive and their causes. Since I'll probably never make a big budget movie like Star Wars, discussing other people's movies is my only option.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 20, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> It's his house, and he will paint it whatever color he wants, because he built it with his own hands. When it was going up everyone told him it was ugly and that it would fall down before he could move in.
> 
> But it didn't, and now that everyone sees how beautiful and sturdy it is, they want him to paint it yellow.




Yes, the house was both beautiful and sturdy. But then, a few years later, he starts adding balconies (literally hundreds of them) to the house, and applies a new paint - pink.
Now people are telling him how ugly it is _after_ they've seen it. It might still be sturdy, though, but arguably not as much as before.

Your metaphor ends after RotJ. It shouldn't.


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 20, 2005)

Hey, my house is pink! (Not by choice, the people before us decided it would be a great idea to tile it in pink stone....)

Thank you to Wolv0rine and barsoomcore for making my argument for me. I really couldn't say it better myself.

I tried to post before and it didn't post....? Idk, here's the message in brief again.

Ok, chill on the insults there, Ankh-Morpork Guard. Half of that post, again, if you had read carefully, was meant to tell you that OF COURSE I have an enormous ego. I'm an artist in every major field, and a good one at that. The difference between pointing out I have a huge ego (I'm stubborn, too) and pointing out that Lucas has a huge ego is that Lucas is a semi-god, and nobody will question him. If my manager at work says something stupid, but says he'll fire me if I don't do it, I'll say, "yes, sir, right away, sir." Lucas has power. Think of him as a larger-scale pointy-haired boss (reference to Dilbert, but I assume you know that.) 
Don't you just love my analogies? At least it doesn't refer to house-painting.

Your posts come down to two things, that it has to be good, since it made a lot of money, and that Lucas should be revered as a god of sci-fi. Look at the tone of your posts on the second one, I think you'll see what I mean.

As for it having to be good to make a lot of money, I hope to God that Pokemon isn't good because it made a lot of money. Or Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. Porn makes a LOT of money. Does that make it tasteful?

Think about your argument again.

@barsoomcore 
[sblock] Lol, yes, some people in this thread can't read thoroughly. Apparently you're not one of them. What insults would you like, you worthless piece of crap?
(J/k). [/sblock]


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 20, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> (snip) Lucas is a semi-god (snip)




I need more input... divine rank, portfolio, domains...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 20, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Your posts come down to two things, that it has to be good, since it made a lot of money, and that Lucas should be revered as a god of sci-fi. Look at the tone of your posts on the second one, I think you'll see what I mean.




Seems I'm not good at getting my point across. My point isn't that is has to be good since it makes a lot of money...but that Lucas HAS TO BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT. No matter what anyone says about his directing/etc, he's obviously doing it right because all the evidence points to that. The only thing not pointing to it are a bunch of people all over the internet who complain...but really, isn't that what the internet was made for in the first place? 

And I don't believe Lucas should be revered as a God, but he should get a lot more respect than he does. Without Lucas, movies would be so very different that its impossible to imagine. THX, Skywalker Sound, ILM. Watch the credits of all the movies you see and you'll usually catch at least one of those in there. Heck, without Lucas, Pixar wouldn't exist.

So, if anything, he should be revered as the God of Modern Movies.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 20, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> I need more input... divine rank, portfolio, domains...



 ...be careful, I might have to pull out D&Dg and stat him out.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 20, 2005)

Every time someone says "bad movies can still make lots of money" what they mean is "movies I don't like still make money."




			
				LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Porn makes a LOT of money. Does that make it tasteful?



Woah, there! There's a *big* diffrence between good and tasteful. Kevin Smith movies are good, but they are not tasteful. 

The best way to judge whether or not a movie is successful (good a bit to subjective) is whether or not it fulfills the purpose the director had in mind for it. When I listen to Lucas' comentaries on the Star Wars films to date, it seems he had a lot of goals in mind while making each of the movie. It seems obvious that he suceeded in some goals and failed in others. 

I'm suprised no one has mentiond _The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles_ in defending Lucas. I loved that series.


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 20, 2005)

Eh, except I defined (and since it wasn't contested, I assume it was accepted) a "good, classic" movie as having a lot of taste. The rest of what you're calling "good movies" are movies you enjoy, and, while that's what movies were originally made for, movies you enjoy don't get to be movies that last for a long time. Chick flicks are testaments to that (actually, I hate chick flicks, but whatever...)
I'm looking for a GREAT movie here. I refuse to bow down to Lucas unless he makes GREAT movies.

So, Ankh-Morpork Guard, we're actually in agreement and just picking at the degree in which Lucas deserves respect. The man is a brilliant producer and conceptualist, I'll give you that. Heck, he's even a decent director.
Go back to my first point. One of us missed it, I honestly don't know who.
Does Lucas need another editor, one with some power? One who can get all those terribly stupid lines out and create a movie that really is a classic because of the movie and not the concept?
I'd say, yes, absolutely. 
Ironically, the only line I "really" remember from watching the movies (besides those I knew beforehand, like "Luke, I am your father (another line which might have been improved, in my oh so humble opinion)" is one that Harrison Ford made on the spot. He's about to get frozen, remember the scene?
"I love you." 
"I know."
Kindof sad that my most memorable line is something Lucas didn't actually write.


----------



## LilMissKittyn (Mar 20, 2005)

Oh yeah, I forgot. Lol, I'll try to get a friend to stat him as a demigod for you (the friend, actually, that introduced me to both Star Wars AND D&D).
[sblock] I'm a young'un of gaming, approaching my one-year anniversary this May, and I don't get to play much but PbP, so I can't do that kind of stuff yet. [/sblock]
It could be interesting.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 21, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Eh, except I defined (and since it wasn't contested, I assume it was accepted) a "good, classic" movie as having a lot of taste.



That's ok. I defined good as having drug and fart jokes. You didn't contest that, so I assu_me_ you'll accept it. 



> Kindof sad that my most memorable line is something Lucas didn't actually write.



Of course, you've only seen the movies once. There could be some great lines that you missed the first time around.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 21, 2005)

LilMissKittyn said:
			
		

> Your posts come down to two things, that it has to be good, since it made a lot of money, and that Lucas should be revered as a god of sci-fi. Look at the tone of your posts on the second one, I think you'll see what I mean.




Let's see here:

George Lucas' Films have been nominated for 15 Academy Awards that I know of. 

This means that people who make films for a living appreciate the skill and art that go into his films.

George Lucas' films also make a lot of money.

This means that people enjoy going to see them again and again.

At what point in this equation do you stop seeing past your tastes and realize that the films have value to others.

Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean it was badly done. Millions of people DO like them.

Chuck


----------



## Tanager (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Let's see here:
> 
> George Lucas' Films have been nominated for 15 Academy Awards that I know of.




Actually 16 and a special achievement award. You missed the two for american graffiti in '73 (nominated for best director and screenplay).    The things you learn when you lived with a film studies student for 8 years.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> George Lucas' Films have been nominated for 15 Academy Awards that I know of.



Best picture?  Best director?  Best actor or actress?  Aside from _A New Hope_ and perhaps _The Empire Strikes Back_, I can't image any of them being nominated for, much less winning, these most coveted and impressive Oscars.  Hell, I can't even consider too many nominations for Best Screenplay.  And I'm referring to the Star Wars films, not his other forays.

The films tend to be appreciated for their technical skill.  While Lucas should be commended for the impact he's had on the technical aspects of film making and the kind of conceptualization necessary to make those things come to life, he's hardly personally responsible for the results beyond his ability to afford such great things.



> George Lucas' films also make a lot of money.
> 
> This means that people enjoy going to see them again and again.
> 
> At what point in this equation do you stop seeing past your tastes and realize that the films have value to others.



I enjoy the films.  I think a lot of people here who have agreed with me on the matter of Lucas' incompetence like the films.  Liking them does not and should not preclude the ability to recognize the flaws inherent in them and Lucas' limitations.  I find it quite odd and bemusing that so many people believe that if one likes something that it's impossible to criticize it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 21, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Best picture?  Best director?  Best actor or actress?  Aside from _A New Hope_ and perhaps _The Empire Strikes Back_, I can't image any of them being nominated for, much less winning, these most coveted and impressive Oscars.  Hell, I can't even consider too many nominations for Best Screenplay.  And I'm referring to the Star Wars films, not his other forays.
> 
> The films tend to be appreciated for their technical skill.  While Lucas should be commended for the impact he's had on the technical aspects of film making and the kind of conceptualization necessary to make those things come to life, he's hardly personally responsible for the results beyond his ability to afford such great things.




And this is a whole different matter. Technical awards shouldn't be looked down on as less that the "Important" awards. Not pointing at you directly, because its a fairly common thing that just bothers me.

Art direction, costumes, set design, etc are just as important, if not more important to movies than the actors and the directors and the writers. But like I said, completely different matter. 

Oh, and how is Lucas not responsible for pushing people to do new things? Look at all that he created for A New Hope to be made. That wasn't just funding from Lucas. He's definitely personally responsible for ILM, THX, Skywalker Sound, etc.


----------



## Orius (Mar 21, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Best picture?  Best director?  Best actor or actress?  Aside from _A New Hope_ and perhaps _The Empire Strikes Back_, I can't image any of them being nominated for, much less winning, these most coveted and impressive Oscars.  Hell, I can't even consider too many nominations for Best Screenplay.  And I'm referring to the Star Wars films, not his other forays.




So what?  Most of the time these Oscars are given out people who are Academy favorites, not necessarily to people who were the best.  The Oscars to me is little more than Hollywood patting itself on the back.  They mean nothing.  Hell, the Oscars were only a few weeks ago, and I couldn't even tell you who took those awards except for Clint Eastwood.  That's how much I care, and I'm sure I'm hardly alone.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 21, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> I enjoy the films.  I think a lot of people here who have agreed with me on the matter of Lucas' incompetence like the films.  Liking them does not and should not preclude the ability to recognize the flaws inherent in them and Lucas' limitations.  I find it quite odd and bemusing that so many people believe that if one likes something that it's impossible to criticize it.




See I have no problem criticizing the films. Many of the comments I've made haven't been directed at you, even though you were original poster.

Saying you wish they were done differently is cool, I just have a hard time with characterizing George Lucas as incompetent.

When he made American Grafitti he filmed it documentary style with a handheld camera, and did several set pieces using rock music instead of an orchestral score. 

This was radical at the time, however, how many movies and TV shows are filmed this way now? It got him nominated for best director.

As for Star Wars, its one of the most popular and enduring sci-fi franchises ever. 

I just don't think incompetent film makers or bad story tellers create things that lasting. 

Chuck


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 21, 2005)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Every time someone says "bad movies can still make lots of money" what they mean is "movies I don't like still make money."



Do you distinguish between "bad movies" and "movies I don't like"?

Because I don't like bad movies. I like good movies. I think most people are like this. The set of movies I think are good is exactly equal to the set of movies I like.

So I don't really see the point of what you're saying. I agree with it, but isn't it pretty much a straight-up tautology? Or were you trying to get something particular across that I missed?

LMK: The sooner you admit what a huge softie you are, the easier it gets. Trust me on this one.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> When he made American Grafitti he filmed it documentary style with a handheld camera, and did several set pieces using rock music instead of an orchestral score.



Exactly the way Jean-Luc Godard did in "Bande A Part" ten years earlier?

Mm, radical.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 21, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Seems I'm not good at getting my point across. My point isn't that is has to be good since it makes a lot of money...but that Lucas HAS TO BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT.



A very common claim that has been (incorrectly) made numerous times in this thread by multiple posters is that by saying Lucas did X, Y or Z poorly, then I must be saying he did EVERYTHING poorly, which directly contradicts what I actually said.  Of COURSE, he's doing something right.  That doesn't mean he's doing everything right.


----------



## myrdden (Mar 21, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> It's called dramtic irony.  The audience knows what's going on when the protagonists don't.  I really don't see a problem with Lucas taking this approach anyway.




The dramatic irony approach pretty much requires the viewer to watch IV, V and VI before I, II & III.  If this was Lucas' intention that all subsequent audiences should watch the movies in the above order then the approach works.  Personally I feel in order to reap the greatest effect from watching these movies, a person needs to watch them in that order.  Watching then sequentially, IMO, lessens the impact of the movies for the viewer.

YMMV, of course.


----------



## myrdden (Mar 21, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Seems I'm not good at getting my point across. My point isn't that is has to be good since it makes a lot of money...but that Lucas HAS TO BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT. No matter what anyone says about his directing/etc, he's obviously doing it right because all the evidence points to that. The only thing not pointing to it are a bunch of people all over the internet who complain...but really, isn't that what the internet was made for in the first place?




Sure he's doing somethings right but I don't think that is what some are arguing in this thread.  It's more along the lines of failed potential.  People see a huge potential in the story of these movies and it isn't meeting the potential/expectation.  I'll agree that the expectations are quite high.  Quite frankly its possible that Lucas could never have fulfilled such expectations.

Personally I think the metaplot is great, but the execution has been off.  I think some of his decisions weren't optimal for telling the story.  With this incarnation of the ST story, the devil is in the details.  We know how the plot is going to go, so characterization becomes much more important.  IMO, the characters are not endearing like the first trilogy.  Some of the plot points (such as the romance between Anakin and Padme) are way too clunky in their execution.  

The movies have been ok and I don't hate them as a whole, but I am disappointed with certain facets of their execution which does detract from the experience as a whole.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 21, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Because I don't like bad movies. I like good movies. I think most people are like this. The set of movies I think are good is exactly equal to the set of movies I like.



So, no "guilty pleasures" when you watch movies? I mean, I can say that Barbarian Brothers is a pretty darn bad movie, but I still like it.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 21, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Exactly the way Jean-Luc Godard did in "Bande A Part" ten years earlier?
> 
> Mm, radical.




Radical enough that only the influence of his mentor and big cheese Coppola allowed the movie to be made that way, how's that?

Chuck


----------



## The Serge (Mar 21, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And this is a whole different matter. Technical awards shouldn't be looked down on as less that the "Important" awards. Not pointing at you directly, because its a fairly common thing that just bothers me.



They _are_ less important films from the human drama element.  True, the technical expertise in many films is essential for the kinds of films associated with "our" genres.  LotRs would not have been as successful without the kind of technical talent needed to bring the world to life (whether visually due to costume design, CGI, etc., or through audio, like Howard Shore's phenomenal scores).  However, these awards are simply "supporting casts;" yes, they are important, but the best technical skill will not help save a film floundering due to poor writing, acting, directing, and the like.



> Art direction, costumes, set design, etc are just as important, if not more important to movies than the actors and the directors and the writers. But like I said, completely different matter.



I disagree that this is a different matter.  I think it's tied directly into what I was saying at the very beginning of this thread (which, I'm flattered to see, has lasted so long).  As I just said a few posts ago, Lucas should be commended for driving the technical side of the industry.  Without his effort in this area, there wouldn't be LotR or these prequels... At least not as great.  It's in this area, along with his ability to come up with great concepts and story foundations, that he excels.  However, when it comes to directing, writing, capturing the human elements/drama, he's abyssmal and incompetent.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 21, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> A very common claim that has been (incorrectly) made numerous times in this thread by multiple posters is that by saying Lucas did X, Y or Z poorly, then I must be saying he did EVERYTHING poorly, which directly contradicts what I actually said.  Of COURSE, he's doing something right.  That doesn't mean he's doing everything right.




Well I have no problem saying "I wish he'd done X or Y".

But people are going way beyond that and saying "Lucas is the problem, he needs to take a back seat".

Let's face it, is everything BAD with the franchise Lucas' fault?

Sure.

But everything RIGHT with the franchise has to be his too right? 

Chuck


----------



## The Serge (Mar 21, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> So what?  Most of the time these Oscars are given out people who are Academy favorites, not necessarily to people who were the best.  The Oscars to me is little more than Hollywood patting itself on the back.  They mean nothing.  Hell, the Oscars were only a few weeks ago, and I couldn't even tell you who took those awards except for Clint Eastwood.  That's how much I care, and I'm sure I'm hardly alone.



Tell it to the one to whom I was responding when I brought up the question of the kinds of Academy nominations and awards Lucas has won.  I suspect you and that person are otherwise in agreement.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> See I have no problem criticizing the films. Many of the comments I've made haven't been directed at you, even though you were original poster.



I know your comments weren't directed specifically to me.  I just read the Oscar comment and decided I needed to say something about it is all.  



> Saying you wish they were done differently is cool, I just have a hard time with characterizing George Lucas as incompetent.



I'm not sure I understand why there's a problem with characterizing the man in such a light, particularly when I and others have made it clear that his incompetence is limited to certain, albeit extremely important, things with regards to movie making.



> When he made American Grafitti he filmed it documentary style with a handheld camera, and did several set pieces using rock music instead of an orchestral score.
> 
> This was radical at the time, however, how many movies and TV shows are filmed this way now? It got him nominated for best director.



Yes, it did.  He was a great director at the time and was in touch with human beings and what drives us.



> As for Star Wars, its one of the most popular and enduring sci-fi franchises ever.
> 
> I just don't think incompetent film makers or bad story tellers create things that lasting.



Well, let's remember that I've always said Lucas is a great conceptualist.  To have a great idea or story arc doesn't mean that one knows how to execute it.  Aside from _A New Hope_, Lucas has done an poor job on the execution side of directing his most popular franchise.  I don't think this means that he's bad at coming up with great ideas; he's just bad with seeing them to quality fruition.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 21, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> So, no "guilty pleasures" when you watch movies? I mean, I can say that Barbarian Brothers is a pretty darn bad movie, but I still like it.



There are many qualities a movie can possess that make it good. It's useful to distinguish between movies that possess certain sets of qualities, but I don't think the term "good" is the best way to do that.

There's "sophisticated" movies. There's "profound" movies. There's "silly" movies.

They can all be good.

But you don't have to use the same terminology as I do. That's okay with me.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But everything RIGHT with the franchise has to be his too right?



I don't know that everything bad with the franchise is necessarily his fault, but I know that everything right about it can't be laid at his feet.

_The Empire Strikes Back_, arguably the best and most successful of the cycle, had the least of Lucas' direct imput...  I think there's something to be said for that.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Radical enough that only the influence of his mentor and big cheese Coppola allowed the movie to be made that way, how's that?



I absolutely agree that Francis Ford Coppola used to be a visionary and a great director.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 21, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> They _are_ less important films from the human drama element.  True, the technical expertise in many films is essential for the kinds of films associated with "our" genres.  LotRs would not have been as successful without the kind of technical talent needed to bring the world to life (whether visually due to costume design, CGI, etc., or through audio, like Howard Shore's phenomenal scores).  However, these awards are simply "supporting casts;" yes, they are important, but the best technical skill will not help save a film floundering due to poor writing, acting, directing, and the like.




So what you're saying is, Lucas isn't perfect? I agree.

However you have to take the good with the bad. Lucas is what he is as a director and has CLEARLY decided he wants to helm his "baby" the rest of the way into drydock.

This is why Siskel and Ebert chose thumbs up or thumbs down as their way of judging movies, rather than stars. 

No movie is perfect, and it either succeeds or fails, despite its flaws and because of its strengths. 

In my opinion, the Star Wars movie definitely succeed, and millions agree. 

Knowing that Lucas intends to make the movie, and knowing what his strengths and weaknesses are, it seems silly to complain about them again and again. You knew going in what the movies were going to be like. 

Also, as to technical vs. character... like it or not movies are spectacle. You can wish for them to be stage plays all you want, but they are spectacles. Cleopatra had some dreadful acting, but the movie succeeded, and STILL succeeds, because of its spectacle.

Lawrence of Arabia succeeded because of the vista of the desert... a natural spectacle brought into the theater brilliantly by Lean. The story was pretty slow and plodding imo. But the movie is inarguably a success because it is still watched today.

The ultimate fate of any work of art is decided in one dimension: time. Lucas has already passed that test, or he wouldn't be worth all the time and energy people devote to his work, both FOR and AGAINST it. 

Chuck


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 21, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> They _are_ less important films from the human drama element.  True, the technical expertise in many films is essential for the kinds of films associated with "our" genres.  LotRs would not have been as successful without the kind of technical talent needed to bring the world to life (whether visually due to costume design, CGI, etc., or through audio, like Howard Shore's phenomenal scores).  However, these awards are simply "supporting casts;" yes, they are important, but the best technical skill will not help save a film floundering due to poor writing, acting, directing, and the like.




The 'technical' aspect is NOT just CGI and things from 'our' genre. Every single movie has an art department, set design, and costume design. Without them, movies would die in a second. They are just as important as acting, directing, and writing. Very few people seem to recognize just how important these things are, and they never get the credit that is deserved, even in movies that you'd never think would have much design to do.



> However, when it comes to directing, writing, capturing the human elements/drama, he's abyssmal and incompetent.




Back to this again, eh?  Look, I don't have any problem at all with saying you don't like how Lucas directs/writes/etc, but to say he's abyssmal and incompentent is a whole different level. I'll keep saying that if he was INCOMPTENT when it comes to those things, nothing could save the movies. Nothing could. Not even the Star Wars name and Lucas' vision.

I do not think he's the BEST director, but he is far, far beyond simply incompentent. If he was incompetent, people wouldn't continue to work with him and ENJOY working with him. And obviously people enjoy working with Lucas. Listen to interviews with Rick McCallum and others in the production crew that have been there for all the prequels.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 21, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Yes, it did.  He was a great director at the time and was in touch with human beings and what drives us.




No lol. This is a clear case of seeing what you WANT to see in what someone else says. 

Lucas used a CAMERA TECHNIQUE and MUSIC to make American Grafitti have a look and feel that resonated with viewers.

It was the writing or the characterization that made the movie a success, it was a TECHNICAL achievment.

He has ALWAYS been this way. 

Yet his movies succeed. Sure they have faults, sure they're not Hamlet... but Hamlet has never translated well to the screen (despite my love for it). Could it be that this is because Hamlet has very little spectacle?

Many make the mistake of lumping movies and plays together. They're very different. Lucas' movies have already succeeded. No one spends this much time and energy arguing about the 6th installment of the Gigli saga now do they?

Chuck


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> No one spends this much time and energy arguing about the 6th installment of the Gigli saga now do they?



If they made one, rest assured I would argue. Vehemently.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But people are going way beyond that and saying "Lucas is the problem, he needs to take a back seat".
> 
> Let's face it, is everything BAD with the franchise Lucas' fault?
> 
> ...



Has anyone on this thread said that, really, or are you just reacting to "net opinion" in general?  The Serge, or barsoomcore, or me, or anyone else who's been vocal in this thread have avoided making the argument that you're arguing against.  So, it seems as if you're arguing with yourself a bit.  

Besides, AMG and others on "your side" have consistently talked about Lucas and his level of control; how can everything bad about the franchise NOT be Lucas' fault if that's true?  Indeed, it's his level of control that's the big problem, because he's unwilling to stick with what he is good at; conceptualizing, managing, pushing the boundaries technically, etc. and farming out the aspects that he's _not_ good at; dialogue and pacing.  It would still very much be his movie if he got another director and screenwriter involved, as he did on ESB and RotJ.  And I'm not sure what his reluctance is, frankly.  It's not like he's doing conceptual design artwork or anything like that.  I assume he recognizes that he's not qualified or talented enough in that area to do the job justice, so he hires folks like Doug Chiang, who are brilliant.

But apparently, he doesn't see that he's also not talented enough to write really good screenplays from his really good sketches and ideas; his dialogue and pacing and general "human element" are weak.  But I think that he thinks otherwise.

Beyond that, I'm not sure why you want to reduce movie discussion to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down."  Sure, Siskel and Ebert used that as a summary, but at the end of the day, any meaningfulness to their reviews was in the discussion, not in the final judgement.  I don't mind giving all the Star Wars movies a thumb's up, but that's not a very useful discussion, and it also hides the fact that with the more recent two movies in particular, that's a thumbs up, but with some serious reservations.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is, Lucas isn't perfect? I agree.



Not just that he's not perfect.  No one's perfect.  My issue with Lucas is that he doesn't know his own limitations as a filmmaker and that this lack of self awareness has resulted in "subpar" films.



> However you have to take the good with the bad. Lucas is what he is as a director and has CLEARLY decided he wants to helm his "baby" the rest of the way into drydock.



And scuff up the hull on the way in.



> This is why Siskel and Ebert chose thumbs up or thumbs down as their way of judging movies, rather than stars.



Actually, I suspect this is as much an issue of marketability (c'mon, what's easier than a thumbs up or down?).  Besides, the value of their "ratings" come from the conversations they have, not the "vote."



> No movie is perfect, and it either succeeds or fails, despite its flaws and because of its strengths.



No, no movie is perfect, but some films come closer to succeeding than others.  I think that the flaws in the prequels result in C work on average than anything else.  While I enjoy the films, I am very aware of the flaws on the first viewing.  This is _never_ a good thing IMO. 



> In my opinion, the Star Wars movie definitely succeed, and millions agree.



I don't know that millions agree.  As I've said before, SW is a cultural phenomenon and a spectacle.  People watch it because of the hype, not necessarily because it's great movie making.  _Batman and Robin_.



> Knowing that Lucas intends to make the movie, and knowing what his strengths and weaknesses are, it seems silly to complain about them again and again. You knew going in what the movies were going to be like.



Not a complaint on my part as much as it's an issue of focusing on what has kept the films from being critical successes rather than monetary ones.  Furthermore, I don't know that I'd agree with the idea that I, or anyone else, knew what they were going to be.  I was expecting the quality of story and acting in _The Empire Strikes Back_.  Didn't get it.  From TPM to AotC, there was also a transition and my expectations weren't necessarily met (for good and ill).



> Also, as to technical vs. character... like it or not movies are spectacle. You can wish for them to be stage plays all you want, but they are spectacles. Cleopatra had some dreadful acting, but the movie succeeded, and STILL succeeds, because of its spectacle.



Cop out.  LotR succeeded largely because of the quality of the story (and there were plenty of errors here as well) in addition to the support of the technical aspects.  

As for _Cleopatra_, I hated it as much as I hate _The Ten Commandments_.  Spectacle has limited impact on me.  I suppose a lot of people value pretty colors and images over quality substance.  Good for them.  This does not mean that just because they put money down for this that there is a translation to quality filmmaking.



> The ultimate fate of any work of art is decided in one dimension: time. Lucas has already passed that test, or he wouldn't be worth all the time and energy people devote to his work, both FOR and AGAINST it.



There are many lackluster things that pass the test of time precisely due to their mediocrity.  As for Lucas, his test was passed with the success of the first two original movies.  The subsequent films will receive the same attention due to their association, not their success (except _Revenge of the Sith_ to date).


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 21, 2005)

For the record, I'm not saying Lucas should or shouldn't do anything, and if I have, I have misspoken because that's not my belief.

He's not a very good director and he's a worse writer. He is, however, perfectly entitled to make all the films he wants to make. He can do whatever he likes with Star Wars.

He has revolutionized the business of distributing films. He has revolutionized so many technical aspects of film-making that it's hard to imagine what cinema would have been like without him. He has even made some good films. And a great TV show.

He still sucks.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 21, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> No movie is perfect.



_Ikiru
The Wild Bunch
Apocalypse Now
The 400 Blows
Drunken Master II
In The Mood For Love
His Girl Friday
Mary Poppins
Bullet In The Head
Singing In The Rain
Bringing Up Baby
Aliens_

I could go on, actually.

Plenty of movies are perfect.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 21, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> The 'technical' aspect is NOT just CGI and things from 'our' genre. Every single movie has an art department, set design, and costume design. Without them, movies would die in a second. They are just as important as acting, directing, and writing. Very few people seem to recognize just how important these things are, and they never get the credit that is deserved, even in movies that you'd never think would have much design to do.



I also didn't list all of the other "human element" awards either...  Stop nitpicking over miniscule stuff when it doesn't change my point.  I am not downplaying their importance, however, I am not overemphasizing them either.  The best costume design in the world isn't going to mitigate terrible direction, storytelling, or action within context.




> Back to this again, eh?  Look, I don't have any problem at all with saying you don't like how Lucas directs/writes/etc, but to say he's abyssmal and incompentent is a whole different level. I'll keep saying that if he was INCOMPTENT when it comes to those things, nothing could save the movies. Nothing could. Not even the Star Wars name and Lucas' vision.



Actually, I never left this.  I stand by it.  It does not deteriorate Lucas' successes in other areas.  I does point out where I (and others) have issues with him.



> I do not think he's the BEST director, but he is far, far beyond simply incompentent. If he was incompetent, people wouldn't continue to work with him and ENJOY working with him. And obviously people enjoy working with Lucas. Listen to interviews with Rick McCallum and others in the production crew that have been there for all the prequels.



I hardly think that the various folks that have worked with him are going to say "negative" things about the man.  Heck, he seems like a nice guy.  I wouldn't want to say unpleasant things about a nice guy I personally knew.  Especially if he paid me well for my effort.  Their attitudes mean little to me with this regard and I find their opinions suspect on the matter anyway given their circumstances.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 21, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> My issue with Lucas is that he doesn't know his own limitations as a filmmaker and that this lack of self awareness has resulted in "subpar" films.




And you know this...how?



> I don't know that millions agree.  As I've said before, SW is a cultural phenomenon and a spectacle.  People watch it because of the hype, not necessarily because it's great movie making.  _Batman and Robin_.




I can repeat myself as much as you can. Batman and Robin made money, yes. But it made no where NEAR the kind of money Star Wars did. People don't go and see Batman movies like they do Star Wars movies. Part of that IS because its a cultural phenomenon, but if Lucas is horribly incomptent then the rest of the movie going public wouldn't keep going and seeing it.

Star Wars isn't a cultural phenomenon just because of the spectacle. Do not judge the trilogy by Empire. Empire is the odd one out, and doesn't really fit in with the rest, even if it IS my favorite. The strengths of Empire could not possibly be keeping Star Wars afloat now. The strengths of the originals couldn't be helping to generate the huge income of the prequels if they WERE horribly directed. People wouldn't go and see them IN HUGE NUMBERS. 



> I was expecting the quality of story and acting in _The Empire Strikes Back_.  Didn't get it.  From TPM to AotC, there was also a transition and my expectations weren't necessarily met (for good and ill).




There's your problem right there. Empire is nothing like the rest of the movies, and NONE of them have the same quality of story. You're not going to get that with ANY Star Wars movie. Its odd to say, but Empire Strikes Back could be the 'problem with Star Wars'.



> The best costume design in the world isn't going to mitigate terrible direction, storytelling, or action within context.




And the best directing, storytelling, and action within context aren't going to mitigate everyone wearing what they came to work in. Costumes help the ACTORS get into character more and help the viewers believe the 'reality' of the environment. They are all equally important. Take out one, and it all fails.



> I hardly think that the various folks that have worked with him are going to say "negative" things about the man. Heck, he seems like a nice guy. I wouldn't want to say unpleasant things about a nice guy I personally knew. Especially if he paid me well for my effort. Their attitudes mean little to me with this regard and I find their opinions suspect on the matter anyway given their circumstances.




Uh-huh. So you're only going to believe what agrees with your point of view? Yes, people involved in the movies are going to be biased, but the enthusiam these projects are worked on, IN ALL ASPECTS, is beyond simply "I'm doing this because its Star Wars!!" or "Lucas pays me to say good things!". 

And I was referring not to what these people say about LUCAS, but about the movies themselves. Rick McCallum and co are behind these movies just as much as Lucas is. Listen to interviews with EVERYONE on the films, from animators to producers. They all truly believe these are great movies and that Lucas is doing a wonderful job.

For all we know, many of them ARE saying to Lucas "Shouldn't you do this instead of that?" and he is listening. We have no proof one way or the other so saying things like "Lucas should get help!" is stupid because he has help. He's not doing all the movies by himself. The people working on these movies have much, much more influence that seems to be assumed by so many. Yes, in the end, its Lucas' decision, and yes, in the end, any problems should be attributed to him. BUT, that doesn't mean he's incompetent. Would so many people be working under him and believe in this project like they do if he is incompetent? SOMEONE would get frustrated and go crazy.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And you know this...how?



Probably because he's...  seen his movies?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Probably because he's...  seen his movies?



 You can tell that Lucas lacks self awareness of his limitations from his movies? Hm, amazing. Didn't think he sat there talking about things like that through them.

For all we know, Lucas is perfectly aware of his limitations. Its even possible he's attempting to work through them. I like to consider myself an artist. I can't draw hands worth crap, but does that mean I should just stop completely and have other people do it for me when they're more qualified than I am?

Not that we have any PROOF Lucas is trying to work through his own limitations, but its JUST as speculative as saying he doesn't even know they're there.


----------



## Rhialto (Mar 22, 2005)

My God!  You just demonstrated that criticism can be disproven--by talking about it sarcastically!  I'm amazed!  You truly have advanced the techniques of debate!  Really!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

Rhialto said:
			
		

> My God!  You just demonstrated that criticism can be disproven--by talking about it sarcastically!  I'm amazed!  You truly have advanced the techniques of debate!  Really!



 Such a wonderful addition to this discussion.

So now its a bad thing that I don't believe The Serge knows Lucas personally enough to know whether or not he lacks awareness of his flaws?


----------



## Rhialto (Mar 22, 2005)

I feel it's as valid your latest addition.  You are aware that "begging the question" is considered a fallacy, correct?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

Please, continue teaching me how exactly I should be responding to everything that is said that I don't agree with. I apologize for doing it wrong. So...do you have anything to actually add to the topic or are you planning to just pick at me?


----------



## CrusaderX (Mar 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> _Ikiru
> The Wild Bunch
> Apocalypse Now
> The 400 Blows
> ...




None of those are perfect.


----------



## Rhialto (Mar 22, 2005)

So, let me see, judging from the sarcastic tone I detect in my post, you're offended that I consider your arguments poor, and in reality have no desire to learn logical discourse.  Thus, you feel that making arguments that others consider poor is a good method of getting your point across.  Well, no reason to forcefully disillusion you.

Now, as to your second question, since your arguments constitute part of the discussion, I think I'm well within my rights to comment on their shortcomings.  (For example, your argument that Serge cannot say Lucas doesn't know his own limitations as a filmmaker because he doesn't know Lucas personally is 'begging the question' because it works from an unwarranted assumption--that personal knowledge is the only valid method to come to such a conclusion.  But as you have no desire to learn how to mount effective arguments, I'll cut this part short.)  However, if you want to know if I have anything to add to this discussion as regards Lucas's Star Wars prequels and talent, then truth be told no, but largely because I feel there's little I can add to it, as it is largely futile.  Your faith in Lucas seems to border on the religious, and I've little doubt that nothing can dissuade you of it.  Thus, trying would be rougly akin to beating air with a baseball bat.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 22, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> None of those are perfect.



Little typo, there. I think you meant "All" instead of "None".

Small errors cause big differences, you know. Always double-check before you post.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> None of those are perfect.




Not even Apocalypse Now...?



			
				Rhialto said:
			
		

> For example, your argument that Serge cannot say Lucas doesn't know his own limitations as a filmmaker because he doesn't know Lucas personally is 'begging the question' because it works from an unwarranted assumption--that personal knowledge is the only valid method to come to such a conclusion.




Personal knowledge is not the only way to know things like that, but judging from his movies alone, how can you possible know what Lucas knows of his own talents or faults? Can you give me proof that Lucas doesn't know his own limitations? The movies can support both the point that he DOESN'T know them, and that he does and is trying to work past them.



> Your faith in Lucas seems to border on the religious, and I've little doubt that nothing can dissuade you of it.




I love it! No matter how many times I say I agree that Lucas isn't the best, I'm seen as impossibly devoted to Lucas. Is it just because I don't agree? Because from where I'm standing, the arguments against him are just as unfounded. Many of them sound like "He's stupid and I don't like because its not how I wanted it to be and stuff!" to me.

I'm sorry for enjoying Lucas' movies and defending him. I always forget that that's not allowed on the internet.


----------



## Rhialto (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I love it! No matter how many times I say I agree that Lucas isn't the best, I'm seen as impossibly devoted to Lucas.




This would be because while you say this repeatedly, it is invariably followed by a dogmatic reitertion of your opinions attacking his critics, suggesting it is essentially a self-serving ploy meant to create an illusion of impartiality, or at least, compromise. 




> Is it just because I don't agree? Because from where I'm standing, the arguments against him are just as unfounded. Many of them sound like "He's stupid and I don't like because its not how I wanted it to be and stuff!" to me.
> 
> I'm sorry for enjoying Lucas' movies and defending him. I always forget that that's not allowed on the internet.




Actually, judging by your tone, it sounds more like YOU are the one demanding that everyone agree with you, since you categorize their criticisms as "unfounded".  

Lucas made movies that many people found disappointing.  They have given their reasons for finding them disappointing.  They are valid reasons.  I'd argue they're excellent reasons.  You feel otherwise.  That's your right.  You feel the movies are good.  That's your right.  I happen to think you're wrong, but this is largely a matter of taste.  However, the arguments you mount to support your opinions are poor.  They damage your case and make you seem peevish and irrational.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

Rhialto said:
			
		

> Actually, judging by your tone, it sounds more like YOU are the one demanding that everyone agree with you, since you categorize their criticisms as "unfounded".




Saying that my faith in Lucas borders on religious isn't exactly the best tone either. In fact, its insulting to me. No different than me using the word 'unfounded'. Because, to me, many of the criticisms ARE unfounded. But many doesn't equal all.



> However, the arguments you mount to support your opinions are poor.  They damage your case and make you seem peevish and irrational.




And the arguments mounted against Lucas haven't been? I may sound irrational, but The Serge has claimed many things that I feel sound irrational and the arguments he mounts to support his opinions are poor.

Validity and strength of arguments for and against these things are just as subjective as whether you liked the movies or not.

You don't have to like how I state my opinions, but you need to accept that there are problems on both sides.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And you know this...how?



He continues to direct and write movies.  



> I can repeat myself as much as you can. Batman and Robin made money, yes. But it made no where NEAR the kind of money Star Wars did. People don't go and see Batman movies like they do Star Wars movies. Part of that IS because its a cultural phenomenon, but if Lucas is horribly incomptent then the rest of the movie going public wouldn't keep going and seeing it.



My point is that money in and of itself does not dictate success nor should it be perceived as a kind of success.  _Batman and Robin_ and scores of other terrible films did well in the box office but are considered unmitigated failures by a fair number of people.  Conversely, there are films that most people -- even those of questionable intellect -- would view as good if not excellent films that did not become cultural phenomenons. 

And you continue to willfully warp my words with regards to Lucas' incompetence.  It's not his ability to market, conceptualize, or drive the film industry that's in question.  It's his ability to direct and write.

pquote]Star Wars isn't a cultural phenomenon just because of the spectacle. Do not judge the trilogy by Empire. Empire is the odd one out, and doesn't really fit in with the rest, even if it IS my favorite. The strengths of Empire could not possibly be keeping Star Wars afloat now. The strengths of the originals couldn't be helping to generate the huge income of the prequels if they WERE horribly directed. People wouldn't go and see them IN HUGE NUMBERS.[/quote]
Two things.  First, this whole idea that Empire "doesn't fit in with the rest" is not only a cop out on your part, it only supports my point that Lucas -- who had the least to do with that film of all the SW films -- is an incompetent director and writer.  

Second, I think it's precisely because of Empire that both ANH and RotJ did so well.  The last twenty minutes of that film forced people to go back and watch ANH with a different perspective and provided one of the best cliffhangers in cinema history.  Without that film, the franchise would not have done as well as it did (it would still have done well, but not as well).  The events in Empire are also what have driven folks to the prequels.  After learning tidbits about Vader in ANH (his betrayal of the Jedi order and his "murder" of Anakin Skywalker) and the revelation of precisely who Vader is in Empire, the desire to see how these things panned out is the driving force behind the prequels.  

Hype is also a driving factor.  Most people with whom I've spoken were likewise expecting the same depth as Empire in the prequels.  The nature of the new trilogy implied that kind of depth.  Hell, the _trailers_ implied that depth.  Lucas failed miserably to produce that, instead focusing and exceling in the technical/action and marketing aspects of the franchise at the expense of story and character.  Because he's an incompetent director and writer.



> There's your problem right there. Empire is nothing like the rest of the movies, and NONE of them have the same quality of story. You're not going to get that with ANY Star Wars movie. Its odd to say, but Empire Strikes Back could be the 'problem with Star Wars'.



Actually, it's not my problem.  It's your problem because you're resorting to a cop out.  Empire is the reason why the franchise did as well as it did.  It's what solidified the franchise as one of the best trilogies ever.  

It's also a cop out because it reveals that you don't have faith in Lucas to create the kind of intensity, character development/progression, story-line, and so forth.  You are willing to accept his incompetence in these areas why saying "Oh, others are expecting too much so it's their fault not Lucas' since he clearly can't deliver."  If Empire is the "problem with Star Wars" and simultaneously the best part of Star Wars, it reflects that Lucas' relative lack of participation was the best thing for the franchise and a reflection of his incompetence as a director and writer.



> And the best directing, storytelling, and action within context aren't going to mitigate everyone wearing what they came to work in. Costumes help the ACTORS get into character more and help the viewers believe the 'reality' of the environment. They are all equally important. Take out one, and it all fails.



I think this is highly debatable and depends upon the movie/performance in question. 



> Uh-huh. So you're only going to believe what agrees with your point of view?



Are you trying to pull a self-righteous stance here?  Really, I could just say that you're doing no different, but I think it goes without saying...  Except I just said it.  This is a good discussion; don't ruin it by getting petty.  I haven't accused you or the others here of wearing blinders or having a childish infatuation with Lucas because I don't believe that you do.  Rather I believe that you are supporting a position.  I respect that even if I vociferously disagree with it.  So, don't prove me wrong by acting like a child with these kinds of statements.  They're beneath you.



> Yes, people involved in the movies are going to be biased, but the enthusiam these projects are worked on, IN ALL ASPECTS, is beyond simply "I'm doing this because its Star Wars!!" or "Lucas pays me to say good things!".



So you say.  I doubt that the case.



> And I was referring not to what these people say about LUCAS, but about the movies themselves. Rick McCallum and co are behind these movies just as much as Lucas is. Listen to interviews with EVERYONE on the films, from animators to producers. They all truly believe these are great movies and that Lucas is doing a wonderful job.



Of course, the interviews on these films are not biased in any way and the comments taken should be accepted at face value.   

Right.



> For all we know, many of them ARE saying to Lucas "Shouldn't you do this instead of that?" and he is listening. We have no proof one way or the other so saying things like "Lucas should get help!" is stupid because he has help. He's not doing all the movies by himself. The people working on these movies have much, much more influence that seems to be assumed by so many. Yes, in the end, its Lucas' decision, and yes, in the end, any problems should be attributed to him. BUT, that doesn't mean he's incompetent. Would so many people be working under him and believe in this project like they do if he is incompetent? SOMEONE would get frustrated and go crazy.



And how do we know that someone hasn't gotten frustrated and left?  In a professional environment when you're dealing with contracts, this is possible and likely that folks aren't going to say anything once they leave.


----------



## The Serge (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'm sorry for enjoying Lucas' movies and defending him. I always forget that that's not allowed on the internet.



I find it amusing that you're taking a wounded stance here.  

I believe that JD, barscoome, myself and others who've taken the position that Lucas is an imcompetent director and writer have made it very clear that we like the films.  I have so many different copies of the original trilogy it's pathetic.  I have so many different recordings of the scores it's pathetic.  However, this does not mean that I'm blind to Lucas' limitations as a director and writer and that I am ignorant of how much more fulfilling the movies could have been had he recognized his limitations and allowed others to participate in those two essential areas.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 22, 2005)

Just because you ignore the reasons given doesn't mean that they don't exist.  Neither I nor The Serge has made any unfounded criticism.

You do repeatedly say that you don't think Lucas is perfect, but then you do repeatedly show that you don't actually think any such thing at all.

And you do repeatedly ignore our statements to counter with _non sequitars_ as well.

I'm sorry, AMG, but the guy is right; you aren't even coming close to convincing anyone of anything, or even of explaining yourself very well.  And, contrary to your implication, it is _not_ because we're a bunch of hard-assed Lucas-hatin' "Internet guys."

Which you would also know if you actually paid attention to our posts instead of whipping yourself into a religious frenzy whenever someone doubts the holiness of Saint George.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> He continues to direct and write movies.




And that means he doesn't recognize the areas we all agree he needs improvement in? I can't draw hands, but I keep trying. Does that mean I don't know that I can't draw hands and should just give up and let someone else do it? 



> My point is that money in and of itself does not dictate success nor should it be perceived as a kind of success.




You know, if you just said bad and good instead of successful it'd be easy. Money DOES measure success, like it or not. For movies, these days at least, successful means they make money. So...yes, money does dictate whether or not a movie is successful. In fact, its the only objective way to measure success.



> Two things.  First, this whole idea that Empire "doesn't fit in with the rest" is not only a cop out on your part, it only supports my point that Lucas -- who had the least to do with that film of all the SW films -- is an incompetent director and writer.




Why is it a cop out? Honestly, its true. Empire doesn't fit in with the rest. But it doesn't mean that Lucas is incompetent as a director or writer. It can say, though, that Irvin Kershner is a better director than Lucas. I honestly believe Kershner is better, but that's opinion in the end, too. 



> Second, I think it's precisely because of Empire that both ANH and RotJ did so well. The last twenty minutes of that film forced people to go back and watch ANH with a different perspective and provided one of the best cliffhangers in cinema history.  Without that film, the franchise would not have done as well as it did (it would still have done well, but not as well).




Damn right. I won't argue that one bit. A New Hope really created the craze but Empire just sent it to an insanely new level. 



> Hype is also a driving factor.  Most people with whom I've spoken were likewise expecting the same depth as Empire in the prequels.  The nature of the new trilogy implied that kind of depth.  Hell, the _trailers_ implied that depth.  Lucas failed miserably to produce that, instead focusing and exceling in the technical/action and marketing aspects of the franchise at the expense of story and character. Because he's an incompetent director and writer.




The point where we disagree here. I wouldn't say he failed miserably at all. While he may not have had the success that Empire did, Jedi didn't even have that. The debth that Empire has is just plain unique, and short of bringing back Kershner with a similar story, we're not ever going to get anything like that. But that doesn't mean I don't love the other movies.



> Actually, it's not my problem.  It's your problem because you're resorting to a cop out. Empire is the reason why the franchise did as well as it did.  It's what solidified the franchise as one of the best trilogies ever.




Its not a cop out to say Empire is the odd one among the movies. Its true. It IS the one that doesn't really fit in with the rest. But its also one of the very few sequels to live up to and surpass the first movie in its series. You're damn right it solidified Star Wars to what it is, but that still doesn't mean its not the odd one of the group.  



> It's also a cop out because it reveals that you don't have faith in Lucas to create the kind of intensity, character development/progression, story-line, and so forth.  You are willing to accept his incompetence in these areas why saying "Oh, others are expecting too much so it's their fault not Lucas' since he clearly can't deliver."  If Empire is the "problem with Star Wars" and simultaneously the best part of Star Wars, it reflects that Lucas' relative lack of participation was the best thing for the franchise and a reflection of his incompetence as a director and writer.




Is it so hard to believe that I love all of the movies despite how different Empire is from the rest? Its not that I accept less than Lucas beacuse he's incompetent. When I sit and watch movies I don't even think about things like that. I just get caught up in them and don't notice the problems. 

Empire is my favorite movie overall, but I enjoy Luke vs. Vader round II in Jedi better. Not for the fight as much as for the banter in the fight. Sure, it isn't "I am your father", but its good. The trench run alone in A New Hope is better than the Battle of Hoth from Empire, IMO. Etc, etc. There are many parts of ALL of the movies I find better than parts of Empire, but Empire is my overall favorite.

Of course, in the end, it all is opinion. If you can't believe I don't lower my expectations to watch the non-Empire Star Wars movies, then so be it. There's no way I can change how you think. 



> I think this is highly debatable and depends upon the movie/performance in question.




To a point, at least, but there is a reason every single movie has an art/set/costume department. 




> Are you trying to pull a self-righteous stance here?  Really, I could just say that you're doing no different, but I think it goes without saying...  Except I just said it.  This is a good discussion; don't ruin it by getting petty. I haven't accused you or the others here of wearing blinders or having a childish infatuation with Lucas because I don't believe that you do.  Rather I believe that you are supporting a position.  I respect that even if I vociferously disagree with it.  So, don't prove me wrong by acting like a child with these kinds of statements.  They're beneath you.




I apologize for that, but there's been at least two people who have accused me of such things. If that annoyance seeps into other discussions, I apologize. 



> Of course, the interviews on these films are not biased in any way and the comments taken should be accepted at face value.
> 
> Right.




Oh, they are biased, but doesn't that also mean that ANYONE Lucas pulls in will be biased? So really...there's nothing that can be done. 




> And how do we know that someone hasn't gotten frustrated and left?  In a professional environment when you're dealing with contracts, this is possible and likely that folks aren't going to say anything once they leave.




True, but stop sounding rational, this is the internet.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, AMG, but the guy is right; you aren't even coming close to convincing anyone of anything, or even of explaining yourself very well.  And, contrary to your implication, it is _not_ because we're a bunch of hard-assed Lucas-hatin' "Internet guys."




Well, J-Dawg, your little group isn't exactly convicing myself and the others who don't agree with you. So nyah, you hard-assed, Lucas-hatin' "Internet guys!" 



> Which you would also know if you actually paid attention to our posts instead of whipping yourself into a religious frenzy whenever someone doubts the holiness of Saint George.




I thought he was a God, not a Saint? Jeez, you people should at LEAST be consistent.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> However, this does not mean that I'm blind to Lucas' limitations as a director and writer and that I am ignorant of how much more fulfilling the movies could have been had he recognized his limitations and allowed others to participate in those two essential areas.




Why does recognizing his limitations mean giving up? I know where my limitations are, but I push them all the time. Do I always succeed? Nope. But does that mean I should just give up? No way.

Yes, the movies could have been better...but would allowing others to step in really have done that? Look at Jedi. Things weren't working out and Lucas was forced to step in and be much more hands on than he'd planned on. There's nothing to say we'll get another Empire, even WITH another director or writer. And it is possible that there are people working on these movies who are changing things from what Lucas had originally envisioned.

What if this help is causing problems? What if there really are others in there participating and its not doing any good? Truthfully, we can't say either way because we're not the ones on the inside working on the stuff. We really DON'T know the inner workings.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And that means he doesn't recognize the areas we all agree he needs improvement in? I can't draw hands, but I keep trying. Does that mean I don't know that I can't draw hands and should just give up and let someone else do it?



You are quite right, actually.  It's entirely possible that he simply doesn't care about quality or professionalism, and rather than produce movies that are thoroughly done well, he cares more about producing movies in which he personally did everything himself that he literally could do, even though he knew he couldn't do it well.  I could actually understand that motivation, although I'd still disagree with it.

However, he's many times stated that that's not true, that he's made the best movies he can, and all things considered, I think that's a very longshot possibility.  And since the only other logical solution to the fact that the writing and directing and pacing is poor (which, to head off your obvious rebuttal, is not _entirely_ subjective; there are qualitative and objective measures of that; not to mention the subjective court of public opinion which has, in my experience, gone against Lucas even amongst non-Star Wars geeks) is that he's unaware of his limitations, that's the one I'll go with.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> However, he's many times stated that that's not true, that he's made the best movies he can, and all things considered, I think that's a very longshot possibility.  And since the only other logical solution to the fact that the writing and directing and pacing is poor (which, to head off your obvious rebuttal, is not _entirely_ subjective; there are qualitative and objective measures of that; not to mention the subjective court of public opinion which has, in my experience, gone against Lucas even amongst non-Star Wars geeks) is that he's unaware of his limitations, that's the one I'll go with.




Saying he's made the best movies he can sounds to me that it supports BOTH sides...yet again. It could either mean that he's completely unaware of his limitations or that he knows they're there, and the movies are the best he can do WITH them. Its not all that much of a longshot, instead it just depends on how you read it.

The best he could do is pretty vague when it comes right down to it when you're trying to judge whether or not he knows his limitations.

(And I won't argue that the pacing/writing/directing are poor. At least, I won't argue by saying they're wonderful. Again, nope, they aren't the best, but there still much better than many other movies and they sure aren't stopping people from seeing the movies. )


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> _Ikiru
> The Wild Bunch
> Apocalypse Now
> The 400 Blows
> ...




Heh, and I think 3 of the movies on that list suck and 2 are mediocre.

But, given that several million people have enjoyed them, I wouldn't call their directors or any of the acotrs involved "incompetent".

See how that works? I am seperating my taste from an objective judgement of quality. I refuse to call things that have proven worth to someone valueless because of my personal tastes.

Chuck


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 22, 2005)

Sorry, did I call anything valueless? Let me see, let me see....

Nope, I didn't. I said things suck. I said they're crap. I even pointed out that those statements are logically equivalent to "I don't like them." I never said they must perforce be devoid of any value whatsoever. Since people like them, they obviously possess some sort of value. At least to those people.

How, exactly, do you make an objective judgement of quality? Because if I don't like something, it's because it isn't very good. If it were good, I would like it. You seem to be conflating popular with good, yet again. I don't understand. Are you saying it is impossible for large groups of people to love and support crap?

I mean you can say that if you like, but I find history supports the opposite notion -- that large groups of people commonly love and support crap. Have you ever read any poetry by Robert Southey, Poet Laureate of England in the early 1800's? He sucks. He's crap. And yet he was loved and praised to the skies in those days. Made a fortune, got a nice retirement package from the king, the whole bit. John Keats was overlooked, brushed off, unconsidered. Two hundred years later, you can find Keats in any poetry textbook. Bob Southey you'll have to dig a little to find.

But art can possess value even if it's bad art. People can get enjoyment out of it even if it sucks -- people do this every day. They watch television which sucks and read books that suck and listen to music that sucks. Every single day, millions of people do this. Obviously they're getting value out of it.

It's still crap.

Clearly that bothers you. Once again, it is not my intention to offend anyone and I'm honestly sorry if that's what's happening. But that's my opinion and I was asked for it and I'll give it.

If you think I'm wrong, if you think George Lucas is a great (or even a pretty good director), can we please talk about his directing? Rather than his money-making abilities? What exactly about the directing in TPM or AotC pleases you? What about the writing struck you as good? I'm willing to listen to any arguments that focus on his abilities as a director (like your comments on _American Graffitti_ -- now that was a (start of a) conversation). If all you have to offer is that he's popular, well, I agree. I just think that history has shown again and again that crappy artists can be (and are) popular.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 22, 2005)

Keep that up (Corey) and you might yet beat my record of (nested) phrases (that are contained in parentheses (in a single sentence (in a post on ENWorld))).


----------



## Rhialto (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Saying that my faith in Lucas borders on religious isn't exactly the best tone either. In fact, its insulting to me. No different than me using the word 'unfounded'. Because, to me, many of the criticisms ARE unfounded. But many doesn't equal all.




Well, sirrah, let us consider things.  Your basic arguments which you repeat ad infinitum, ad nauseum are an appeal to authority (we are not Lucas, thus we have no right to judge his work) and begging the question with various unwarranted assumptions.  You may feel it is an insult, but the fact is you are using exactly the kind of arguments used by the zealously religious to defend their faith.



> And the arguments mounted against Lucas haven't been? I may sound irrational, but The Serge has claimed many things that I feel sound irrational and the arguments he mounts to support his opinions are poor.




Serge has offered up reasons for his opinions, and argued them logically.  You have responded to his arguments by restating the same points, ignoring or misinterpeting his statements, and keeping your tone sarcastic and self-righteous.  If you consider this a valid form of debate, you are then sadly mistaken.




> Validity and strength of arguments for and against these things are just as subjective as whether you liked the movies or not.




Here, sir, you are so mistaken, that any elaborate comment on my part would constitute 'gilding the lily'.



> You don't have to like how I state my opinions, but you need to accept that there are problems on both sides.




Actually, by your argument, I do not, as since by your account, the merit of all types of argument are purely subjective, and thus I can simply choose to see them as I will.  In reality, while there have been less than stellar arguments on both sides, I find the truly egregious errors in logic to fall soundly in the Lucas camp, and then stay there, like a very heavy boulder lodged in mud.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Saying he's made the best movies he can sounds to me that it supports BOTH sides...yet again. It could either mean that he's completely unaware of his limitations or that he knows they're there, and the movies are the best he can do WITH them. Its not all that much of a longshot, instead it just depends on how you read it.



Not really.  He farmed out the art design, because he's not good at that.  He farmed out the acting, because he can't do it all himself.  He farmed out the set building, because he doesn't have the wherewithal to literally build his sets himself.  If he also knew that he wasn't a great screenplay writer or director or editor, why did he not farm that out as well?

I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation simply doesn't make much sense in this case.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 22, 2005)

Bottom line is this:

If you like it, go see it. If you don't like it, then don't spend any money on it, but don't stop the fans that want to see this from seeing it.

Lucas makes the story as he wants, and that is his right as an artist. Our right, as the audience, is to decide if we want to see it or not.


----------



## Berandor (Mar 22, 2005)

At the risk of jumping on the bandwagon, this argument really  goes around in circles. I'll try and deliver my point of view which, if not terribly different, will at least be phrased differently 


			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And you know this...how?



I've seen Episode I and II. Episode I had some (to me) obvious flaws with regards to storytelling and character development. These flaws were pointed out by several people, and had to be Lucas' because of his high degree of control over the movie. Episode II had, to me, the very same flaws Episode I had, which shows me that Lucas is either not aware of his flaws or simply wasn't interested in making a better movie. If he was, he'd tried to enlist people that could help him with his flaws, help him get better, take a "drawing-hands coach", so to speak. So he's either not aware of his flaws or doesn't care about making flawed movies. I'd rather he was simply oblivious.



> I can repeat myself as much as you can. Batman and Robin made money, yes. But it made no where NEAR the kind of money Star Wars did. People don't go and see Batman movies like they do Star Wars movies. Part of that IS because its a cultural phenomenon, but if Lucas is horribly incomptent then the rest of the movie going public wouldn't keep going and seeing it.



And the rest of the movie-going public didn't continue to go out and see it. Episode I was a HUGE hit also because of fans who went to see it several times (heck even I, who thought it pretty much sucked, saw it two or three times in the theatre, just to have seen it with my friends). Also, it *is* still a colorful and loud popcorn film much in the vein of Charlie's Angels in terms of quality. And Charlie's Angels is a bad film. Still, a lot of "spectacle movies" have an audience, and, coupled with fans and those driven by perceived cultural importance of the film went to see it. From the box office, you can see that Episode II, though most people call it superior to the first, had a huge drop in audience gross. Not as many non-fans went to see it, and even fans stopped going in as often as they saw Episode I in their Star-Wars-hungry state back then. Again, it was a summer spectacle movie, as well, but judging from audience response and taking into account fan base, the change from Episode I, to me, signals failure instead of success. The movie didn't even come close to its potential gross.


> Star Wars isn't a cultural phenomenon just because of the spectacle. Do not judge the trilogy by Empire. Empire is the odd one out, and doesn't really fit in with the rest, even if it IS my favorite. The strengths of Empire could not possibly be keeping Star Wars afloat now. The strengths of the originals couldn't be helping to generate the huge income of the prequels if they WERE horribly directed. People wouldn't go and see them IN HUGE NUMBERS.



You should also keep in mind that for twenty years, people were slavering for a new film. That's not the four years for a new Matrix movie. By the time Episode I came out, people would have gone and watched a flying turd several times in the theatre (and for my part, they did).



> And the best directing, storytelling, and action within context aren't going to mitigate everyone wearing what they came to work in. Costumes help the ACTORS get into character more and help the viewers believe the 'reality' of the environment. They are all equally important. Take out one, and it all fails.



I'm sorry, but I disagree. A lot of independent films have to make do with very bad set design, or costume design, or similar. Still, these films can and do work. It's not that it isn't important, but it's no where near as important as having able/charismatic (one or the other, both'd be best) actors, good directing, scriptwriting, editing (!). Heck, even as a fan of cinematography, I readily agree that a lot of enjoyable movies have mediocre or worse cinematography, especially in fight scenes.
On the other hand, if your director is a klutz, your story sucks, or your actors don't know a way out, you've got only very, very sim chances to save the film. Case in point, to me, are the Star Wars Episodes I and II.



> And I was referring not to what these people say about LUCAS, but about the movies themselves. Rick McCallum and co are behind these movies just as much as Lucas is. Listen to interviews with EVERYONE on the films, from animators to producers. They all truly believe these are great movies and that Lucas is doing a wonderful job.



Like Ewan McGregor who dissed Ep I and II, alike?
There are two factors at work here. One is the fact that in press interviews, nobody in Hollywood (or 99.99999 percent) does *not* say anything negative about their work for a specific film until maybe twenty years later. Two, the animators, set designers, costume designers, etc. all *did* a magnificient job on the film. Where it lacks is in cohesion, storytelling and acting - the director's job (at least in part).



> For all we know, many of them ARE saying to Lucas "Shouldn't you do this instead of that?" and he is listening.



Well, if he is, that he is listening to the wrong people, despite what they told him for Episode I. Realistically, though, we know how Lucas exerts control even over the two decades old original trilogy. We know how Lucas Arts confronts websites who post "spoilers". We know what people who worked on the OT have said about working with Lucas, and it seems his flaws have resurfaced in Episode I and II, while his strengths have been more subdued. We know he's taken a break of twenty years, and most people's skills don't improve by not using them.
Is it really that improbably that Lucas is making his own decisions and doesn't listen to anybody (a tendency he had even during the filming of the OT), compared to his advisors making the misconceptions? I don't think so.







> We have no proof one way or the other so saying things like "Lucas should get help!" is stupid because he has help.



It's like a murder case. We have no proof, but all evidence points in the direction of Lucas' failings.


> Would so many people be working under him and believe in this project like they do if he is incompetent? SOMEONE would get frustrated and go crazy.



Let's not even go there. People work for Star Wars because they get paid, and probably handsomely. Maybe the like Star Wars, are even fans. Maybe the recognize the franchise's potential. But primarily, they get paid. People are still working for McG. People work for Joel Shumacher. Heck, people work for Uwe fricking Boll. And those working on Star Wars get paid better than working for Boll, I'm sure. Plus, it's a point of pride to be part of a cultural phenomenon. And SW *is* a cultural phenomenon. It is movie history. 

You keep saying that because Episodes I and II made a lot of money, Lucas must have done something right. Well, aside from set design and similar "categories", what was it?

A lot of people have claimed that the character development, the storytelling, the acting was off. Do you agree, or disagree? Was the acting wooden, was the story jumbled and a letdown, did the movie lack in atmosphere?

I personally think that movies *can* be judged somewhat objectively. You can judge cinematography, fight (or dance) choreography, acting etc. in objective terms. It's the "craft" part of filmmaking. To me, there's a different influence you cannot judge, which I call "it". Some movies have "it", and some don't. Also, people respond differently to "it", which makes for the divergence in movie taste (as well as a different standards of quality).

Yes, I have seen movies that were crafted expertly, movies that I reviewed as "very good". I could appreciate their craftsmanship, but they still left me cold. "Wow, that was a great movie. I'll never watch it again." Similarly, there have been movies that were made very, very cheaply, and I still enjoyed them, loved them. "guilty pleasures" is a term often associated with such movies. ("The Gamers" would be one of these)

You can't really argue with barsoomcore, since he doesn't like the movie and it's therefore bad, and if you, following his definition, like the film, it's good. It's easy, simple, and not subject to change (at least not easily). But you can show me where Lucas did well, did right, in storytelling aspects, where he followed a great master-plan that will lead us logically from whiney and lucky Anakin to fearsome Darth. You can convince me that Episode I and II were indeed, good films.

Try it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> If you think I'm wrong, if you think George Lucas is a great (or even a pretty good director), can we please talk about his directing? Rather than his money-making abilities? What exactly about the directing in TPM or AotC pleases you? What about the writing struck you as good? I'm willing to listen to any arguments that focus on his abilities as a director (like your comments on _American Graffitti_ -- now that was a (start of a) conversation). If all you have to offer is that he's popular, well, I agree. I just think that history has shown again and again that crappy artists can be (and are) popular.




Funny thing is, I don't really have any arguments as to why he's a good director. I don't have a "He's Great!" to match up with all of your "He Sucks!". Instead, I'm simply not annoyed by the many things you guys have brought up. The dialogue IS stilted at times, but not all the time and it just doesn't bother me. The love story IS slow and done in a way that isn't usual, but it doesn't bother me. These two people are supposed to fall in love. So they do, and we get that over with so we can get back to that action. Whether you believe it should have been handled that way or not is, of course, a whole different matter.

Young Anakin? I liked it, and for me it works. For me, really all the things you've complained about aren't problems. Of course, your comments were aimed at Vigilance, really. 



			
				J-Dawg said:
			
		

> Not really. He farmed out the art design, because he's not good at that. He farmed out the acting, because he can't do it all himself. He farmed out the set building, because he doesn't have the wherewithal to literally build his sets himself. If he also knew that he wasn't a great screenplay writer or director or editor, why did he not farm that out as well?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation simply doesn't make much sense in this case.




Maybe he felt he could do it better than anyone else could? Whether or not this is true, we can't say, though, as no one else did do it. Sure, it worked for Empire, but it didn't really work on Jedi. Its not something that works everytime, so it seems that Lucas just decided he could do it best and went ahead with it. He STILL could have known his own limitations and decided that he could still do it better than anyone else.

That doesnt mean he was RIGHT, but it still makes sense as an interpretation. At least, to me it does. 



			
				mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Bottom line is this:
> 
> If you like it, go see it. If you don't like it, then don't spend any money on it, but don't stop the fans that want to see this from seeing it.
> 
> Lucas makes the story as he wants, and that is his right as an artist. Our right, as the audience, is to decide if we want to see it or not.




Yep. But if people THINK they're going to like it and spend money on it they feel the need to complain. That's fine and all, as the internet was made to gripe about movies. But I can't help but wonder why some people KEEP SEEING these movies and are suprised they have the same complaints. Many even say the same things about A New Hope and Jedi, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise when Lucas' way of doing things isn't liked.

Of course, that's no different than any other director or writer. Some people simply don't like certain directors/writers/whatever for the way they work. Lucas isn't above that, and if you like Star Wars but don't like how Lucas does things, you're just going to have to live with it because they're stuck together.



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> You can't really argue with barsoomcore, since he doesn't like the movie and it's therefore bad, and if you, following his definition, like the film, it's good. It's easy, simple, and not subject to change (at least not easily). But you can show me where Lucas did well, did right, in storytelling aspects, where he followed a great master-plan that will lead us logically from whiney and lucky Anakin to fearsome Darth. You can convince me that Episode I and II were indeed, good films.
> 
> Try it.




None of you have convinced me or Vigilance that they were BAD films, so do you really expect either of us to convince you they're good? Its not that this is going in circles, its that its not going anywhere. And it won't. We're all stubborn and we know what we like and we've already made up our minds. Its really no different than all the Edition Wars threads that pop up over in General every so often.

And if anyone really thinks that they're convincing the other side that they're right, then please take a look at this thread one more time. No one's switched sides yet. Besides, barsoomcore's got a solid argument. How in the hell can anyone debate "It sucks" ?


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Maybe he felt he could do it better than anyone else could? Whether or not this is true, we can't say, though, as no one else did do it. Sure, it worked for Empire, but it didn't really work on Jedi. Its not something that works everytime, so it seems that Lucas just decided he could do it best and went ahead with it. He STILL could have known his own limitations and decided that he could still do it better than anyone else.
> 
> That doesnt mean he was RIGHT, but it still makes sense as an interpretation. At least, to me it does.



No, that makes no sense.  If you know that you're not very good at something, you don't think you can do it better than anyone else.  Those are directly contradictory statements.


----------



## Berandor (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Besides, barsoomcore's got a solid argument. How in the hell can anyone debate "It sucks" ?



Easy.

"No, it doesn't."


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, that makes no sense.  If you know that you're not very good at something, you don't think you can do it better than anyone else.  Those are directly contradictory statements.



 Just because you aren't very good at something doesn't mean you still can't do better than others. How do you know putting someone else in WILL do better than Lucas? You can't. Lucas can't know that either, and he's obviously decided that whether or not he's a best of the best, he IS the best for the job of making HIS movies.

Its not as contradictory as you may think, but it does sound odd. It is a kind of justification many people use all the time, though.



			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> Easy.
> 
> "No, it doesn't."




Which is all this really boils down to in the end, I guess.


----------



## Cassiel (Mar 22, 2005)

Rhialto said:
			
		

> I feel it's as valid your latest addition. You are aware that "begging the question" is considered a fallacy, correct?




Actually, begging the question is a valid form of argument, not a formal fallacy. It may be annoying to people who disagree with you, but that's another issue. Given your insistence on logical discourse, I thought you should know this. There is a bit of question begging in The Serge's argument that Empire is the best SW movie, that Lucas was least involved with Empire, that Lucas is incompetent, for example. Because you agree with The Serge, you neglect this, but because you disagree with AMG, you single it out (even though it's not actually a fallacy, nor is it an argument AMG actually makes).



			
				Rhialto said:
			
		

> For example, your argument that Serge cannot say Lucas doesn't know his own limitations as a filmmaker because he doesn't know Lucas personally is 'begging the question' because it works from an unwarranted assumption--that personal knowledge is the only valid method to come to such a conclusion. But as you have no desire to learn how to mount effective arguments, I'll cut this part short.




While the argument you characterize here would be begging the question, it is not an argument AMG made, or even came close to making. So, when you say,


			
				Rhialto said:
			
		

> However, the arguments you mount to support your opinions are poor. They damage your case and make you seem peevish and irrational.



it's your "logical discourse" that's at issue. A straw man may not be a formal fallacy any more than begging the question is, but it isn't reputable rhetoric either.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'm simply not annoyed by the many things you guys have brought up.



See? THAT'S the sort of thing we can talk about. The dialogue in these movies doesn't bug you. Presumably things in these movies delight you. Certain things delight me -- that one army droid that gets its top blown off and is just a pair of legs walking around for a while. Hee. The sword fight at the end is one of the great sword fights in history, no question.

Here's one reason, though, why I think TPM is a failure as a cinematic experience: it doesn't work with the sound off. I think truly great films are films that are so well-told visually that you could turn the sound off and still follow and even be thrilled by the story.

_Star Wars_ does this perfectly. As do most of the movies on my Perfect list. You can turn off the sound and watch and enjoy the story unfolding.

Well, okay, maybe not _His Girl Friday_. Or at least, you'd be missing so much brilliant dialogue, why would you do it?

But TPM doesn't work at all. It doesn't make any sense if you can't hear all the exposition that everyone has to deliver. Who are these underwater guys? Who are these funny-looking guys? Why is that kid driving that big machine? What is that spooky-looking guy trying to do?

I think that's some of the best evidence that TPM is a cinematic failure. It's not a great film.

In fact, to take the risk of repeating myself, it sucks.  



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Of course, your comments were aimed at Vigilance, really.



With laser-like targetting.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> None of you have convinced me or Vigilance that they were BAD films, so do you really expect either of us to convince you they're good?



I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think this whole "If I'm right you must be wrong," attitude is at the heart of why so little actual discourse happens in modern society.

I don't want you to agree with me. I DON'T CARE if you agree with me. I already know I'm right, I don't need more opinions to reassure me.

But I do want to know what you think, and why. Because I'm interested in your opinions. If I think you've overlooked something, or are misinterpreting something, I'll bring it up, but I'm not trying to "win" here. I'm just having fun seeing what people think about stuff.

Because that's how I get new ideas. And new ideas are good. I know they're good, because I like them. Remember? That's what "good" means.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Besides, barsoomcore's got a solid argument. How in the hell can anyone debate "It sucks" ?





			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> Easy.
> 
> "No, it doesn't."



Ber! Don't give away my secret!


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> How, exactly, do you make an objective judgement of quality? Because if I don't like something, it's because it isn't very good. If it were good, I would like it. You seem to be conflating popular with good, yet again. I don't understand. Are you saying it is impossible for large groups of people to love and support crap?




There is a perfectly valid way to make an objective judgement of quality.

I don't like musicals. Never have never will. Thus your statement that Singing in the Rain is a "perfect" movie, has no bearing on my opinion whatsoever.

So I went to my sister, who loves musicals, amd she concurred with your take that it's a "perfect movie".

Therefore, in the instance of Singing in the Rain, I am willing to yield that it has a high degree of quality, even though I have never been able to sit through the whole thing.

As for defending Lucas movies... I haven't seen any cogent arguments on the other side. All I've seen are "the acting sucked, the writing sucked, Lucas is the weakest link, the movie he stayed the furthest away from was the best, he's an incompetent director".

Some of these statements were made by you, some by others. Still, they seem like emotional smackdowns, not arguments. 

As for why *I* like the movies, here is what I liked:

*Episode I*

Qui-Gon. I thought he was a great character. A bit of a rogue. A smart mouth. Didn't give a damn for the rules, followed his heart. 

Annakin's mother. The scene where Annakin is leaving her to a life of slavery, in order to follow his dream of being a Jedi was gut-wrenching to me, and I thought the woman who played that character gave a fantastic performance.

Darth Maul. This guy just oozes dread. Physical Charisma. Not all performances are about dialogue. Anyone who has ever scene a bad Falstaff can tell you that. He was a disposable villain, but he was a really *good* one.

Obi-wan. I always loved this character as played by Alec Guiness, and seeing that the crazy old man used to be a young, insecure, ambitious man who towed the Jedi Council's party line resonated with me. I see a lot of his future disdain for authority in the fact that the "party line" led him and everyone like him to ruin. 

Terrance "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD" Stamp. I always love Terrance Stamp. The man is a sci-fi legend and always seems to bring his gravitas with him.

The sword fight. The Qui-gon/Obi-won/Darth Maul fight at the end was fantastic. When they backed Maul into a corner, and Obi-won gave a head fake at the moment Qui-gon attacked, I said to myself "nice, these two are working together to ICE this f***er". And the end of the fight, when Obi-won and Maul fought one on one had some blindingly fast sword moves. 

*Episode II*

Christopher Lee. Slimy. His best charm-oozing Dracula sort of menace on display here. 

Yoda fights! The moment he tossed his cane to the side and got ready to kick ass, I, along with most of the theater were on our feet. Watching it again on DVD, I noticed the many subtle homages in his mannerisms and expressions to Yojimbo. A nice, brilliant, directorial touch. Yoda as Toshiro Mifune? Daddy likes. 

Annakin vs. the Sandpeople. This is where it all starts to fall apart for the tragic hero. Hayden really sold me on his ability to be pure evil in this scene. Also, having long been fascinated by the sandpeople, seeing how they live and getting another glimpse of their barbarism was nice. 

The arena scene. Just a great fight scene where everyone got to shine. I liked the chemistry between Annakin and Padme and Obi-won in this scene a lot.Oh yeah, and Samuel L. Jackson kills Jango Fett. Really, what more could you want out of life.

Now I'm sure folks will now chime in and tell me how I'm wrong about all these, how the movies I liked did, in fact suck. 

But oh well 

Chuck


----------



## Berandor (Mar 22, 2005)

I'm wrong about all these, and the movies I like, suck!

No, wait!

Actually, that's a nice list, and while I only agree with you on two or three scenes/things that I liked, as well, it's a nice indication of what worked for you. Thanks!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Here's one reason, though, why I think TPM is a failure as a cinematic experience: it doesn't work with the sound off. I think truly great films are films that are so well-told visually that you could turn the sound off and still follow and even be thrilled by the story.




Now that's a very interesting idea. Of course, Apocalypse Now wouldn't really work without the sound. It just wouldn't be the same perfect movie without some of those great lines. Marry Poppins is all about talk, really. So while its an interesting idea, you do need sound, even in visually perfect movies. 



> But TPM doesn't work at all. It doesn't make any sense if you can't hear all the exposition that everyone has to deliver. Who are these underwater guys? Who are these funny-looking guys? Why is that kid driving that big machine? What is that spooky-looking guy trying to do?
> 
> I think that's some of the best evidence that TPM is a cinematic failure. It's not a great film.




I think its an interestin idea, but not a way to say if a movie is great or not. Can you really name a movie that works PERFECTLY without the sound where you're still able to follow the plot well enough to know what's going on? I honestly don't even think A New Hope can pull that one off all that well.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 22, 2005)

The debate in this thread has occasionally steered pretty close to closure time, but it's got back on track again thankfully.

Please remember to not get personal; the posts like vigilance's one which lays out specific things that he does like are much more productive.

Cheers


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 22, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> There is a perfectly valid way to make an objective judgement of quality.



Well, what you describe (accepting your sister's word on a movie) isn't remotely objective. It's just listening to and accepting somebody else's subjective opinion.

How is that objective?



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Your statement that Singing in the Rain is a "perfect" movie, has no bearing on my opinion whatsoever.



Sorry, that whole line of discussion was meant as a sort of joke. OF COURSE my opinions on what a perfect movie is will have no bearing on your opinion. Why should it? That all got taken far more seriously than I meant it to be taken.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> As for defending Lucas movies... I haven't seen any cogent arguments on the other side. All I've seen are "the acting sucked, the writing sucked, Lucas is the weakest link, the movie he stayed the furthest away from was the best, he's an incompetent director".
> 
> Some of these statements were made by you, some by others. Still, they seem like emotional smackdowns, not arguments.



Come on. How is "He sucks" an emotional smackdown?

  

I'll assume you were posting at the same time as me, and so didn't see my comment above about sound-off viewing. I honestly feel that's a pretty good way of assessing a film. But we can have more.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> As for why *I* like the movies, here is what I liked:



NOW we're talking! 



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Qui-Gon. I thought he was a great character. A bit of a rogue. A smart mouth. Didn't give a damn for the rules, followed his heart.



No question. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan were the highlight of this film. Two great actors dedicated to providing a real emotional core to the story, to sharing a powerful relationship. Absolutely.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Annakin's mother. The scene where Annakin is leaving her to a life of slavery, in order to follow his dream of being a Jedi was gut-wrenching to me, and I thought the woman who played that character gave a fantastic performance.



See, I WANTED to say she gave a fantastic performance, but I'm not convinced she did. Reviewing it, I've come to the conclusion that I don't know how she feels about her son's disappearance with a total stranger. I'm not saying that she needs to present just one feeling or another, but if she's conflicted, then THAT'S what should be communicated. I don't know how she feels, ultimately.

Anymore than I know why she lets this total frickin' stranger walk off with her only son. I've always assumed that Qui-Gon jedi-mind-tricked her into accepting it. Which opens a whole other can of worms that I think I made up because I wanted the story to be more interesting than it was -- that Qui-Gon is actually a bit of a bad guy, that he flat-out kidnapped Anakin from his mother and thereby set in motion the entire collapse of the Republic, his own death and the death of his apprentice (not to mention pretty much the entire Jedi Council).

I'm not sure the story is ACTUALLY that sophisticated, though. Especially after AotC. I WANT it to be and for a while I convinced myself that it was, but I don't think there's lots of evidence towards that end.

Which is another cause for disappointment, because the whole idea of good guys and bad guys being intermingled is kind of interesting. If not very in keeping with the rest of the Star Wars style.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Darth Maul.



Say no more. Ray Parks is a gifted martial artist (though a pretty bad actor if he's asked to do anything other than glower, which fortunately, he wasn't here) and the makeup job here was huge.

Great heavy.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Obi-wan. I always loved this character as played by Alec Guiness, and seeing that the crazy old man used to be a young, insecure, ambitious man who towed the Jedi Council's party line resonated with me. I see a lot of his future disdain for authority in the fact that the "party line" led him and everyone like him to ruin.



The best part about both the two prequels has been watching Ewan Macgregor try to single-handedly lift the material above itself. He's been trying SO HARD. And I like him so much. And his Alec Guinness impression is very very good.

Definitely a high point of the films. Although he seemed to fall flat in the second somewhat. Still leagues above his co-stars, for the most part. Though I think Natalie Portman is TRYING, I just think she's getting crushed under the direction and dialogue. Because she's immensely talented, there's no question. And she has moments of brilliance (the bit where, as queen, she tells Anakin that Padme's not available, is one of my favourite moments), but time and again she's given these horrible mouthfuls to try and spit out. Not even Harrison Ford was always able to negotiate Lucas' dialogue, so I don't hold it against her.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Terrance "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD" Stamp. I always love Terrance Stamp. The man is a sci-fi legend and always seems to bring his gravitas with him.



Big Terrance Stamp fan, but he's done very little for me here. Mainly because he's had almost nothing to do. Not like Peter Cushing in _Star Wars_. He seems wasted here.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> The sword fight.



Maybe the best sword fight ever directed by a white guy. I own the TPM DVD solely because of that sword fight. I MIGHT go see RotS just to see if they manage to top it.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Christopher Lee. Slimy. His best charm-oozing Dracula sort of menace on display here.



Meh. What's the performance? He's trying, but he's got nothing to work with and nowhere to go. You go "Ooh, Christopher Lee," and then chuckle at his beautiful voice and you're done.

Compared to Saruman, Lee is phoning this baby in. I mean he's great, no question, he's always great. But I want to see him DO something. And I don't.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yoda fights!



This gets sillier every time I see it. What a painful moment.

I like the idea, sort of, but it was... I don't know. Silly. And tedious. My main interest was in how they'd gotten Christopher Lee to move around like that, and if they'd replaced him with a digital double.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Watching it again on DVD, I noticed the many subtle homages in his mannerisms and expressions to Yojimbo. A nice, brilliant, directorial touch. Yoda as Toshiro Mifune? Daddy likes.



Yoda was easily the best performance in the whole movie. The movie was better every time he was on screen. His expressions, his reactions -- the Yoda animation team did a spectacular job. Big kudos there.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Annakin vs. the Sandpeople.



This was just overblown melodrama for me. Lucas really milks this, and unfortunately, neither Pernilla August nor Christian Hayden sold me on any of it. The audience I saw it with was chuckling in this sequence, which I'm pretty sure wasn't what was intended.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> The arena scene.



The fights with the monsters felt like "The Rancor, but with less tension and let's do it a couple of times, why don't we?" It's a general problem throughout these two films -- a lack of tension.

In the first film, you're on the edge of your seat throughout because you never know what's coming -- you aren't 100% sure that our heroes (or at least that all of them) are going to triumph. They split up in the Death Star, so you worry if maybe Han and Chewie are going to get caught, or maybe Luke and Leia. Especially when Ben dies half-way through the movie. And Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru's charred corpses certainly make it very clear that the stakes are high and danger is all around.

In the prequels, that feeling isn't there. The pod race -- there's simple no possiblity that Anakin is going to lose this race. You know that before it even begins. And yep, sure enough, he wins the race. The characters are forever being put in "jeopardy" that you can clearly predict the outcome of.

This is why the final swordfight in TPM works so great -- because you can imagine that they WON'T win this one. The story has been set up so that this might turn out any particular way.

Compare that with the Gungan battle or the space battle, both taking place at the same time. You KNOW the Gungan's aren't about to be slaughtered in front of our eyes, and you KNOW Anakin's not going to get blown away, so there's very little tension. Hence, very little excitement.

The same problem with the monster battle in AotC. You KNOW Anakin, Obi-Wan and Amidala aren't going to die here. You know that. So there's no tension, and the whole scene reduces to a "That was kinda cool" observation. Which is fair enough, but it's a long ways away from a thrilling moment in cinema.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Now I'm sure folks will now chime in and tell me how I'm wrong about all these, how the movies I liked did, in fact suck.



Well, they did. 

But no, I don't think you're wrong. How could you be wrong about what you like? I do disagree with you, but that doesn't make you (or me) wrong. This isn't a contest, it's a conversation.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 22, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Of course, Apocalypse Now wouldn't really work without the sound. It just wouldn't be the same perfect movie without some of those great lines. Marry Poppins is all about talk, really.



I think both films would remain truly entertaining experiences without sound. The visuals alone tell a story.



			
				AMG said:
			
		

> I think its an interestin idea, but not a way to say if a movie is great or not. Can you really name a movie that works PERFECTLY without the sound where you're still able to follow the plot well enough to know what's going on? I honestly don't even think A New Hope can pull that one off all that well.



Perhaps I was unclear. Of course movies involve BOTH sound and visual, and any movie is an incomplete experience if you don't get one or the other (not to mention both). I never meant to suggest otherwise.

But yes, in fact, you CAN follow the story of _Star Wars_ with the sound off. Come on, it's easy: Little plucky ship overrun by big sinister ship led by BIG sinister guy in black who kills people. Beautiful princess sends funny-looking friend away and is subsequently captured by big sinister guy. Funny-looking friend hooks up with disaffected youth, leads him to old man who supplies magic sword and comfort at the death of parents. Old man leads youth into civilization, makes friends with devil-may-care rogue and they go to where the princess is being held (she's being tortured, by the way), rescue the princess while the old guy confronts and is defeated by big sinister guy, escape and return (rogue who previously bailed coming back at the right moment) to destroy big sinister guy's house.

Good guys acquire medals, enjoy applause, and the credits roll. It's a fun story.

A movie that WON'T work that way isn't necessarily a disaster, but it IS a bit of a warning sign that maybe the film is relying too much on exposition to move the story forward. And this is what we find in TPM -- without the great swathes of exposition, the film is incomprehensible. And that's a problem with the script that leads to the film sucking.

Disney movies are often very good at this. Watch all the touches in a film like _Hercules_ that show you what's going on -- the little skulls bubbling up in Hades' poison, the camera moves up to Olympus, all that stuff helps to tell the story VISUALLY, which is part and parcel of making a good movie.

Watch _Citizen Kane_, for crying out loud. It's practically a silent film in its visual story-telling.

Lucas can do this very well in a sequence-specific manner. His set-pieces are often very well-crafted. But assembling those into a strong story has proven beyond him in these films. He has failed at this basic cinematic task.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Well, what you describe (accepting your sister's word on a movie) isn't remotely objective. It's just listening to and accepting somebody else's subjective opinion.
> 
> How is that objective?




No its not me accepting one person's opinion. Its me seeing that MANY people disagree with my opinion.

See what I'm talking about is an avoidance of the classic bad review syndrome, you know where reviewer starts off with the following "disclaimer": I hate dungeons, I have never seen a dungeon adventure that was any good. Oh and I hate the DIablo video game for the same reason. Now, let's review this dungeon adventure! And of course, it gets a "2" or lower. What. A. Shock.

Or when a rock critic says "I hate rock opera, and this Queen album is the worst piece of tripe ever put on vinyl".

Both are true stories, one from an ENW staff reviewer and the other from Rockline. In these situations, where you know you won't like a type of movie (like me with musicals), then I think the thing to do is turn to someone who can give an objective opinion. 

But that's just me, I'm a Libra and tend to see all sides of everything 



> I'll assume you were posting at the same time as me, and so didn't see my comment above about sound-off viewing. I honestly feel that's a pretty good way of assessing a film. But we can have more.




See, I think that seeing movies with sound off supports the kind of movies I tend to like (the spectacles). However, I don't think it works for all good movies, not by any stretch. Full Metal Jacket (the basic training sequence) is one of my favorite sequences in any movie ever. Hilarious in a black-comedic way that hasn't been seen since MASH. But that sequences would make no sense without dialogue, and I think its brilliantly directed. 



> No question. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan were the highlight of this film. Two great actors dedicated to providing a real emotional core to the story, to sharing a powerful relationship. Absolutely.




Exactly. And, their performance in the first movie informs us in the second movie. We have seen a Sensei-Student relationship that worked. So when we see Annakin and Obi-won, we immediately realize that this isn't how it's supposed to be. 

And again, in Obi-wan's performance in Ep II I love his "proper" ways that I know he'll have ditched (in favor of Qui-gon's methods) by the time he teaches Luke. 

I also love how he blames himself for the failure. In ESB, he says Annakin was his failure. Seeing the prequels, I love that I disagree with him. He was one wanting to off the kid (or at least handcuff him and try to slow the growth of the power curve) and Yoda and Mace were the ones pushing the kid ahead.



> Anymore than I know why she lets this total frickin' stranger walk off with her only son.




Well, I think she saw the goodness in Qui-gon myself. Here was a guy who walked into her life and did nothing but care for her son. I saw in her that she had never met a man who did that. 

Also, I don't think she *did* know she could trust him. But a chance at freedom with Qui-gon was more of a chance than he had with her. And Qui-gon was a Jedi. I think that gave him a certain added level of trust from her. It would be like being a Knight of the Round Table. 



> The best part about both the two prequels has been watching Ewan Macgregor try to single-handedly lift the material above itself. He's been trying SO HARD. And I like him so much. And his Alec Guinness impression is very very good.




Yeah, he's great and I was pretty sure no one could play Obi-wan.



> Not even Harrison Ford was always able to negotiate Lucas' dialogue, so I don't hold it against her.




Right, Lucas' actors have always had to sink or swim largely on their own. And that is a weakness of his as a director. I still love his movies, but still, he leaves actors out on a big ledge.

Here's a story from American Grafitti.

Ron Howard meets Lucas, and is in awe, because he too wants to direct some day, and for those who seek or sit in the Big Chair (like Howard and Speilberg and Coppola) THX-1138 made Lucas a star for them immediately.

So Howard mentions to Lucas that he wants to direct and Lucas says, "Oh yeah that would be great for you Ron! Listen, take my advice, go into animation, then you don't have to deal with actors."

And Ron nodded and walked away thinking "He doesn't like actors?"

But yet the movie was really GOOD. 

You can either hear this story and think Lucas is a technically gifted hack, or you can hear it and think he's letting the actors do their thing without being micromanaged. Some (like Mannikin Skywalker/Jake Lloyd) really need that, and some (like Harrison Ford and Ewan McGregor) shine.



> Maybe the best sword fight ever directed by a white guy. I own the TPM DVD solely because of that sword fight. I MIGHT go see RotS just to see if they manage to top it.




See, for me, as a Kurosawa fan, this makes the movies good right there. I have no problem saying I watch the sequal to Yojimbo purely for the fight scene at the end. That's enough for a movie imo. 

As a fan of the theater, if I want story and plot I'll hitch to NYC and catch Henry IV.




> Yoda was easily the best performance in the whole movie. The movie was better every time he was on screen. His expressions, his reactions -- the Yoda animation team did a spectacular job. Big kudos there.




True, but also a brilliant directorial stroke. See, Lucas was conciously patterning the character after Yojimbo and there's even a scene in the Ep II DVD where he tells a CGI guy "watch Yojimbo again, that's how I want him to act".

One thing I love about watching Lucas' films is his little Kurosawa homages, which as a trememndous fan, I catch all the time and give me the warm and fuzzies. 



> This was just overblown melodrama for me.




Sure it was. So was Obi-wan dying in ANH. And Hayden's acting was much better than Hammill's.

The movies ARE melodrama. They are action/adventure with a little Japanese revenge tragedy tossed in for flavor. I don't rip the movies for what they are, because what they are rocks imo. 



> In the first film, you're on the edge of your seat throughout because you never know what's coming




You are?!?! Really?

So, when Luke "trusts his feelings" and turns off his targeting device, you thought he was going to miss?

Well I was 9 and I *knew* he was going to nail that puppy. From the first time he mentions hitting Wampum Rats (or whatever the hell he called them) it was set up loud and clear that he was the one who would make the shot. Sorry, not a lot of tension for me there, just good clean fun.



> The same problem with the monster battle in AotC. You KNOW Anakin, Obi-Wan and Amidala aren't going to die here. You know that. So there's no tension, and the whole scene reduces to a "That was kinda cool" observation. Which is fair enough, but it's a long ways away from a thrilling moment in cinema.




And I knew Luke wasn't going to die fighting the Rancor too lol. Maybe you saw tension there, but I saw it as cool.

Die fighting Vader? That was a possibility. Die 30 minutes into the last film against some monster? Not bloody likely.

Again, you are slamming the prequals for things the originals did as well. 

Chuck


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 23, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The debate in this thread has occasionally steered pretty close to closure time, but it's got back on track again thankfully.
> 
> Please remember to not get personal; the posts like vigilance's one which lays out specific things that he does like are much more productive.



Huh?!  I'm watching at least half a dozen threads in General that are more heated than this without any hint of closure time.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 23, 2005)

We're forgetting the main point of the Star Wars films, and that is that they tell a story that entertains the audience. 

I'm not saying that Lucas is the best director or writer. But they weren't meant to be great movies like Citizen Kane or Fargo. Lucas didn't NEED to be a great director or writer. It would've been great if he would've been, but that's just icing on the cake. They were meant to be movies that charm us and transport us to a magical place and time. And if they've done that, then I say, "Mission Accomplished."


----------



## Logan (Mar 23, 2005)

At the risk of being called a Lucas fanboy, I don't think there's really anything wrong with Star Wars per say.  Was TPM a dispointment?  Yeah, a little.  Diddn't like Lil' Annie, diddn't like the pod race, HATED Jar-Jar.  That's about it.  Really liked Darth Maul, I thought he'd be back as a cyborg or something.(Or better yet, he was a twin, Darth Hammer, who want revenge! Err, sorry)  I guess overall I enjoy the movies, all of them, too much to worry about the same things.  If you don't like them, hey, that's fine.  Thin Lucas is a hack?  I'm cool with that, too.
  As far as good movies vs movies I like, Citizen Kane is one the best movies ever made, but I'd rather watch Harold and Kumar go to White Castle again.  Just my choice.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 23, 2005)

I had a great time watching the first two movies at the theater, and so did the crowd based on the reactions when I was there.  Hell the place just went nuts when Yoda whipped out his saber and fought Dooku in the second one, I was picking my jaw off the floor.  Other than Jar Jar most of the people I talked to have enjoyed the first movie as well.  

You can't really make any judgments based on internet BB's of course.  

Perfection?  Of course not.  Good enough to sweep me away to a time long, long ago, and to a galaxy far, far away?  Without a doubt.   Movie critics and film students be damned!


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 23, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> No its not me accepting one person's opinion. Its me seeing that MANY people disagree with my opinion.



Okay, many people (you said you asked your sister, which counts as one in my book, but if it's actually many, that's fine).

Many people's subjective opinions don't magically turn into an objective opinion. They're just lots of subjective opinions. You can make objective statements about those opinions ("Lots of people love movie X"), but the opinions themselves remain subjective and capable of being wrong.

You claimed to have access to objective opinions about art. I find that a startling sort of claim and am trying to figure out what you meant by that.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> In these situations, where you know you won't like a type of movie (like me with musicals), then I think the thing to do is turn to someone who can give an objective opinion.



And who's that?



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Full Metal Jacket (the basic training sequence) is one of my favorite sequences in any movie ever. Hilarious in a black-comedic way that hasn't been seen since MASH. But that sequences would make no sense without dialogue, and I think its brilliantly directed.



What about it wouldn't make sense? I think it works great. I mean, I'm not the biggest _Full Metal Jacket_ fan, but I don't see what would make that sequence meaningless.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, I think she saw the goodness in Qui-gon myself. Here was a guy who walked into her life and did nothing but care for her son.



In that, "I'm going to encourage your son to risk his life in a death-defying adventure," kind of way. I don't really disagree with you here, but you're putting a lot into the story that Lucas never did.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> And Qui-gon was a Jedi. I think that gave him a certain added level of trust from her. It would be like being a Knight of the Round Table.



And she knew he was a Jedi how, exactly? Because he could do magic tricks?

Well, I don't know that I would let MY son go off with somebody who could do that. I find it easier to believe that Qui-Gon didn't give her a choice, even though I think I putting a lot into the story that Lucas never did, too.


			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> See, for me, as a Kurosawa fan, this makes the movies good right there. I have no problem saying I watch the sequal to Yojimbo purely for the fight scene at the end.



Not for the fight scene at the beginning? Or the ones in the middle? Or for Mifune all the way through? And the guy they hide in the closet? And the old lady?

Come on, there's a MILLION reasons to watch _Sanjuro_. It's a great film, start to finish.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> As a fan of the theater, if I want story and plot I'll hitch to NYC and catch Henry IV.



Don't really understand that.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> One thing I love about watching Lucas' films is his little Kurosawa homages, which as a trememndous fan, I catch all the time and give me the warm and fuzzies.



See I just find it "stealing" more than "homage".

Somebody once said that the problem with Brian de Palma's movie _Red Planet_ was that Hitchcock never made a movie about interplanetary travel. I think you could say that the problem with TPM is that Kurosawa never made a picture about trade disputes.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Sure it was. So was Obi-wan dying in ANH. And Hayden's acting was much better than Hammill's.



Okay, we can disagree on that.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> The movies ARE melodrama. They are action/adventure with a little Japanese revenge tragedy tossed in for flavor. I don't rip the movies for what they are, because what they are rocks imo.



I'm not ripping them for what they are. That would be pointless. I'm ripping them for what they do poorly. And the moments around Anakin's mother's death is done poorly. It is TOO melodramatic. It is SO melodramatic that it's comical rather than tragic.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> So, when Luke "trusts his feelings" and turns off his targeting device, you thought he was going to miss?



You have a habit of attacking arguments I never made. The final moments of _Star Wars_ ARE tense, because you don't know HOW it's going to happen. That's a lesser form of tension, of course, and yeah, I think it's a problem in the film. It's supported, however, by the mythological strength of the moment, as well as the surprise of having Solo return to reaffirm our faith in people.

The ending of _Star Wars_ is an affirmation of what has gone before.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> And I knew Luke wasn't going to die fighting the Rancor too lol. Maybe you saw tension there, but I saw it as cool.



Actually, I agree with you. Not much tension, and over quickly enough that that wasn't a problem. It was a "look how cool and tough Luke's gotten while he was away" kind of moment, which sets us up for the final battle with Jabba at the Sarlac pit.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Again, you are slamming the prequals for things the originals did as well.



Well, you'll notice none of the originals are on my list of perfect films. So, yes, I am. If that's relevant, let me know how.

Or does this mean your defense of Lucas is "He's as crappy as he's always been"? I wouldn't argue too vociferously against that.


----------



## two (Mar 23, 2005)

*absolutely soulless and embaressing*

HI all,

I'm not a Star Wars fan nor not a fan.  I watched the original trilogy and liked them ok; if they were on late at night and I was drunk I would watch 20 min. here or there during college, just as I would watch Godzilla or any number of other "dumb but fun" movies.  I wasn't and am not emotionally invested in the Star Wars franchise as such.  I simply don't think about it.  I hadn't thought about the movies for about 2 years --  until I came across this thread.

I watched The Phantom Menance on DVD from NetFlix at some point in the past.  My reaction was swift.  The movie felt incredibly empty.  Entirely soulless.  The computer FX had a feeling of "oh this again" after a few scenes.  Everything seemed lit the same way; the entire world had a bland homogeneous feel to it.  It was the definition of unfunny.  I felt like my mouth was open and a dentist was telling me jokes, forcing me to smile (for I feared what he might do if I showed less than complete enthusiasm). 

I didn't go into the movie wanting to like it or not wanting to like it.  I sure hadn't read much about it, good or bad.  I came out of the movie feeling more than a little embaressed.  So much money spent on such an empty husk.  Completely bereft of anything approaching "art", that much was overwhelmingly clear.  So what, throw away art.  Was it even fun?  Did it make me laugh?  Did I enjoy a battle scene?  No, no, no.

It's very difficult to describe the empty feeling the movie generated.  Perhaps the best analogy would be the effect of watching over-sized and artificially enhanced computer-generated figures performing sexual acts in an computer-generated environment.  What they mean to do -- provoke some good old-fashioned sexual desire in the audience -- is incredibly far removed from the audience's actual reaction, which is:  confusion, repulsion, and a lack of understanding why they didn't just use some attractive real-life humans in the first place).  This gets somewhere close to my final impression.

Perhaps.

Let's just say this:  until I wrote this post, I hadn't considered Star Wars in quite a while.  After seeing TPM, I can tell you with 100% certainty that I plan never to spend another second of my life watching, thinking, or writing about anything related to the series.

Two out -- and I mean out.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 23, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And she knew he was a Jedi how, exactly? Because he could do magic tricks?




He had a lightsaber. It is the symbol of the Jedi.



> Well, I don't know that I would let MY son go off with somebody who could do that. I find it easier to believe that Qui-Gon didn't give her a choice, even though I think I putting a lot into the story that Lucas never did, too.




Oh, come on. Is you son a slave on a dustball in the middle of no where? Pretty much anything was better for Anakin than growing up a slave. It was a chance for him to be free, and his mother believed that he was meant to help the Jedi, anyway. Sure, it didn't turn out all that well, but that's Anakin's fault, not his mother's.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 23, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Oh, come on. Is you son a slave on a dustball in the middle of no where? Pretty much anything was better for Anakin than growing up a slave. It was a chance for him to be free, and his mother believed that he was meant to help the Jedi, anyway. Sure, it didn't turn out all that well, but that's Anakin's fault, not his mother's.




That, and I see that there was a certain romanticism about the Jedi. THEY were the Heroes of the Republic; the Good Guys.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 23, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> We're forgetting the main point of the Star Wars films, and that is that they tell a story that entertains the audience.



Who's "we" in that sentence? I mean, if you forgot, then I'm glad you remembered, because that's an important thing to remember, for sure. But I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else has forgotten that.



			
				Flexor The Mighty! said:
			
		

> Other than Jar Jar most of the people I talked to have enjoyed the first movie as well.



It's too bad Jar Jar didn't like the film. Did he say why?



			
				AMG said:
			
		

> He had a lightsaber.



Okay. Identity proofs are apparently a little more relaxed in the Old Republic than in our current world.

Good thing some guy with mad tinfoil skillz hadn't come along earlier and said, "Hey, I'm going to take off with your son, is that okay? Oh, and gimme the keys to your house, while you're at it. You can trust me, here's my shiny lightsaber hilt."



Look, I'm just goofing around on this, it's not a very serious problem with the film. I think it's kind of amusing in a typical Lucas-sloppiness fashion, but it's by no means anything very important.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 23, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Okay. Identity proofs are apparently a little more relaxed in the Old Republic than in our current world.
> 
> Good thing some guy with mad tinfoil skillz hadn't come along earlier and said, "Hey, I'm going to take off with your son, is that okay? Oh, and gimme the keys to your house, while you're at it. You can trust me, here's my shiny lightsaber hilt."
> 
> ...




Oh, I know its nothing major. But people don't go around impersonating Jedi. It can get you into some trouble if a REAL Jedi does find you.

Jedi are essentially the Knights of the Round Table for the Republic. Instead of shining armor, horses, and titles, they have lightsabers. Simple? Yep, but its never been claimed that it wasn't.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 24, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Or does this mean your defense of Lucas is "He's as crappy as he's always been"? I wouldn't argue too vociferously against that.




Well, I am a fan of many movies Lucas has been involved in so I wouldn't say crappy.

However, if you scroll back, you will note that I have, in fact VERY SPECIFICALLY made the argument that Lucas has not changed.

He wrote, directed and edited American Grafitti, using technical achievments to make a stunning film. As you point out, that technique had been used earlier and you could either call it an homage or a ripoff.

In SW he wrote, directed and edited, using techniques adapted (or lifted if you prefer) from David Lean (for the Tatooine sequences) and Kurosawa (the Death Star sequences).

And now in the prequels he is writing, directing and using techniques adapted from other directors.

So I have made the argument that he hasn't changed, in fact, it's central to my belief that Empire was a VERY different movie from any of the other five SW movies, and many people who rate that as their favorite bitch about any of them that are different (which is all of them). 

Now, I like them, because I like what Lucas does, so him having a lot of control is just fine with me. If you don't like him, then I don't expect you to like these movies. 

Chuck


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 24, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Who's "we" in that sentence? I mean, if you forgot, then I'm glad you remembered, because that's an important thing to remember, for sure. But I haven't seen any evidence that anyone else has forgotten that.




Well, when I said "we," I mean everyone who's arguing that the Star Wars films are ruined because of so-called "crap" writing or directing.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 24, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Okay. Identity proofs are apparently a little more relaxed in the Old Republic than in our current world.




I think it was the whole scenario, not just the sword. 

Qui-gon shows up out of nowhere. He's huge and obviously (in my eyes) tough as nails, but he's gentle and polite. 

If you remember everything we have seen of Tatooine, the big tough people aren't nice and gentle. 

She also knew that her son had "special powers" as she calls them, and Qui-gon surprises her by picking up on it right away. *HE* mentions Annakin's powers to the mother first. Now remember, Watto had owned the boy since birth and didn't really see much special about him. A valuable slave sure, but he didn't seem to think the boy had any magical powers.

And if Jabba or the Hutts had become aware of Annakin's powers, they would have taken him.

So here's a badass who arrives out of nowhere and sees things those around the boy haven't noticed for years.

And he has a lightsabre. 

Chuck


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Mar 24, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Let's just say this: until I wrote this post, I hadn't considered Star Wars in quite a while. After seeing TPM, I can tell you with 100% certainty that I plan never to spend another second of my life watching, thinking, or writing about anything related to the series.



Mission accomplished


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 24, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Oh, I know its nothing major. But people don't go around impersonating Jedi. It can get you into some trouble if a REAL Jedi does find you.
> 
> Jedi are essentially the Knights of the Round Table for the Republic. Instead of shining armor, horses, and titles, they have lightsabers. Simple? Yep, but its never been claimed that it wasn't.



I always saw them like marshalls in the Old West, myself.  But point taken.  It's all fancy fiction.  

No matter how much any of the Star Wars movies mistep or triumph I always come back to: no one has done this kind of thing on this scale, ever. 6 movies with a storyline that directly crosses from one to the next like 6 straight months of comic books. Evil, evil men and goodly good men doing battle with glowey swords and crazy wizards cackling during it all. Old sages handing out fortune cookie wisdom and ghosts warning not to repeat past mistakes. Good fairy-tale stuff.

I find it increasingly hard to truly judge the 2 newest films because I have not seen the film the links them to the originals. I view them with a careful eye as a fan of the originals to catch more insights to the story that already has an ending. So, to me it's all about the journey. With all of the films I push the stuff I didn't care for to the back of my mind and let the amazing sequences take me along for the ride. Overall, the movies are pretty darn fun.

I am damn interested to see how they all play out when put together on the chain. I'm even more interested to see how jarring the transition from this 3rd film is to watching the 4th film as a follow-up to it. The quality can be (and is) debated up and down from all directions. Doesn't change the fact that this third film is movie history in the making simply by virtue of the numbers, scope and worldwide attention. For every person who doesn't care about Star Wars there are 5 more people to do to take his/her place. Even if just midly interested.

So, what again is the problem with Star Wars?


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 24, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> So, what again is the problem with Star Wars?




What is that, a stand-up routine, like, "What's the deal with airplane peanuts?"


----------



## myrdden (Mar 24, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> So, to me it's all about the journey. With all of the films I push the stuff I didn't care for to the back of my mind and let the amazing sequences take me along for the ride. Overall, the movies are pretty darn fun.




I have to admit I do the same thing.  Good stuff to the front of the brain; bad stuff to the back.  I'll agree that the movies have been fun, but they seem to be missing the spark from the first ones for me.  A spark I am very willing to attribute to my age at the time of watching them.  Honestly, I think if the love story had been better done in AotC I think there would be less criticsm for Lucas.  Take out the romance scenes and AotC is an improvement over TPM.  He really did drop the ball on the that one I think (the romance I mean).



> I am damn interested to see how they all play out when put together on the chain. I'm even more interested to see how jarring the transition from this 3rd film is to watching the 4th film as a follow-up to it.




Me too.  I have been giving Lucas a lot of slack over the downsides in the first two prequals because I thiknk the overall plot is great (and the visuals have been pretty satisfying as well).  I hope things come together in the next movie.

I also think the series is not meant to be seen as sequential order.  I still believe it is meant to be seen in chronological order.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 24, 2005)

myrdden said:
			
		

> I still believe it is meant to be seen in chronological order.




...our chronology or the chronology of the Star Wars galaxy?


----------



## myrdden (Mar 24, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> ...our chronology or the chronology of the Star Wars galaxy?




Our chronology...


----------



## Orius (Mar 25, 2005)

myrdden said:
			
		

> The dramatic irony approach pretty much requires the viewer to watch IV, V and VI before I, II & III.  If this was Lucas' intention that all subsequent audiences should watch the movies in the above order then the approach works.  Personally I feel in order to reap the greatest effect from watching these movies, a person needs to watch them in that order.  Watching then sequentially, IMO, lessens the impact of the movies for the viewer.




Well, I'm fairly sure Lucas made the assumption that many people had already seen the originals; hence there's no secrecy about Anakin becoming Vader, Palpatine becoming the Emperor, Padme, being the mother of Luke and Leia, etc.  Even where some of this stuff might not be knon to a more casual watcher, the fans know the stuff inside out.  And even if some one saw say, TPM first, there's always the opportunity to watch the later ones out of order.

Also, I saw the originals long before the new ones.  I don't know what it's like to see them in order from I-VI for the first time.


----------



## Orius (Mar 25, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> Tell it to the one to whom I was responding when I brought up the question of the kinds of Academy nominations and awards Lucas has won.  I suspect you and that person are otherwise in agreement.




Actually my point is that the idea of "Best Picture", "Best Actor", "Best Director", and so on, aren't really all that objective as criteria for judging films IMO.  These selections have at least as much to do with internal Hollywood politics as they do with actual merit.  People who win them do so at least partially out of favor from the Academy, and not just purely because they _were_ the best.  I also see some of it as a matter of taste, and thus harder to judge objectively.    Awards like Costume Design, Visual Effects, Makeup, and so on tend to be a bit more objective because there's less (if any really) of those politics involved.  Perhaps you may disagree, but that's my view of things.

I'm not going to bother getting into the long pointless argument of how good or bad Lucas is at making these films that has dominated the thread.  I've read it enough times already, in several different variations.  I do agree that Lucas isn't great at dialogue, particularly romantic dialogue, and he does seem to focus a bit too heavily on special effects. Certainly his weakness with dialogue hurt the whole romance with Anakin and Padme in Episode II.  But otherwise I thought AotC wasn't that bad.  TPM seems weak too, but like I stated before, it's not meant to stand alone, but rather part of a greater whole.  Certainly Lucas knew that much way back in the 70's when he decided to start Star Wars where he did, rather than with the fall of the Republic.  And no, I don't believe Lucas had all of TPM in mind when he wrote up the final scrpit of Star Wars, although there are some ideas that go back that far.


----------



## Orius (Mar 25, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Keep that up (Corey) and you might yet beat my record of (nested) phrases (that are contained in parentheses (in a single sentence (in a post on ENWorld))).




Arrg, and here I'm trying to cut back, dammit, putting parenthetical staments into complete snetences on their own!


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 26, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Well, I am a fan of many movies Lucas has been involved in so I wouldn't say crappy.
> 
> However, if you scroll back, you will note that I have, in fact VERY SPECIFICALLY made the argument that Lucas has not changed.



Again, you seem to think we're having an argument I don't think we're having. I'm not meaning to say that Lucas has undergone some dramatic shift. I think these later movies of his ARE demonstrably worse than both _Grafitti_ and _Star Wars_, but not because he's changed any. Just because he's run out of story and inspiration. _Star Wars_ just wasn't a rich enough foundation to support the succeeding films.

But I don't think there's been any big change. _THX-1138_ is a piece of crap, too. So we hold very different opinions about his skill as a writer and director, but not about his growth or change.

I _liked_ his movies a lot more (at least _Star Wars_) when I was a kid, but I liked a lot of crap back then because I hadn't learned how to distinguish it from good stuff. I ate a lot of crap for very similar reasons.

If there's been a change, it's been on my side entirely. I apologize if I gave a different impression.



			
				mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Well, when I said "we," I mean everyone who's arguing that the Star Wars films are ruined because of so-called "crap" writing or directing.



So your position is that I don't like these films because I've _forgotten_ they're supposed to be entertaining?

Uh, no. I don't like these films because they DON'T ENTERTAIN me.

Subtle difference, there.

And am I the only one who finds it interesting how pretty much everyone who speaks in support of these films points out how EVERYBODY ELSE loves them, too (whether by mentioning how everyone else in the theatre was excited, or pointing out how much money they've made, or all the awards they've garnered)? What's that all about?


----------



## CrusaderX (Mar 26, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> _Star Wars_ just wasn't a rich enough foundation to support the succeeding films.




Do you really believe this?  I think that even the most jaded prequel viewers would strongly say otherwise.  Indeed, one of the most common prequel complaints is that these films had _so much potential for greatness_, and Lucas wasted the tremendous potential that was there.

Not to mention the fact that alot of good and entertaining post-SW comics, novels, cartoons, and games prove your statement to be wrong.  

I mean really.  If the Star Wars story elements are't rich enough to support succeeding works, then _no_ story is rich enough to do so.


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 26, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> _Star Wars_ just wasn't a rich enough foundation to support the succeeding films.




This is a statement I could not disagree with more strongly.

The original comic series would have to rank (with Roy Thomas' Conan) as the best comic adaption of all time. I'd also rate it as one of the best comics of all time. Period.

It drew the kind of talent even MARVEL has trouble drawing, like Howard Chaykin.

Also, the current Dark Horse series also draws the best the comics field has to offer, including Garth Ennis, who did one of the best comic stories I have ever read as a one shot. It currently has 3 ongoing comic series and countless miniseries. 

Also lines of books, cartoons and an upcoming TV series... the only universe even close to that level of richness is Star Trek. One could argue that Trek's novels are better (I would) but Trek has never had a comic nearly as successful as any of the SW comics.

So at most you could say SW is more about the visuals... but even then, the idea that there's not enough depth to support multiple stories seems like a statement already proven false.

Unless you're going to argue that EVERYTHING produced for the expanded universe sucks too. 

Chuck


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 26, 2005)

Meh. My interest in the "expanded universe" ended with _Splinter of the Mind's Eye_ and those old Han Solo novels. I understand some of the video games have been very good, though.

My taste in comics runs to Alan Moore and Frank Miller and Bill Sienkiewicz, so I'm not sure the SW comics would be for me. Even when I was kid I knew the over-sized comics adaptation of _Star Wars_ was utter crap. I'm not sure if this is the one you're referring to, but I can remember even as a kid being outraged at the crappy art. I think it was a two-part, oversized set. I got them as a gift because I was such a huge fan (i.e., I was nine in 1977) and was horrified as soon as I opened them.

The Conan comics pretty much bug me, too, so Chuck, I think you and I are just listening to different drummers in our little heads. Except, apparently, when it comes to Akira Kurosawa.



But I can't say that EVERYTHING produced for the expanded universe sucks, because I'm happily ignorant of it all, for the most part. And if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to watching _The Killer_. THAT'S my kind of entertainment.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Mar 27, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And am I the only one who finds it interesting how pretty much everyone who speaks in support of these films points out how EVERYBODY ELSE loves them, too (whether by mentioning how everyone else in the theatre was excited, or pointing out how much money they've made, or all the awards they've garnered)? What's that all about?



Attempts to legitimize their opinion of the movie based on supposedly objective sources?

Personally, I like them, despite their faults (some of them grievous (no pun intended)).  Some people here do not.  Some people do and feel the need to bash them anyway.  It is, after all, very trendy in geek circles to be smarter and more talented than George Lucas.  Since 1999, anyway.

On a completely different note...


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The Conan comics pretty much bug me...



Have you seen the new series?  I have NEVER liked a Conan comic in my life, until I saw the current Dark Horse series.  The artist is brilliant, and the writing feels like Howard somehow.  Something that almost never happened in any previous Conan comic, IMO.


----------



## Endur (Mar 27, 2005)

Movies Ratings
Star Wars   Fantastic.  Original.  Visionary.  Iconic.  One of a kind.
Empire Strikes Back   Great sequel.  Better than the original for technical effects and darkness of story.
Return of the Jedi  Good closing to the trilogy.  Ewoks were over the top.

Phantom Menace    What was this movie about?  I walked out of it barely understanding it.  
Attack of the Clones   More feeling lost in this movie, although we're getting closer.  

My analysis is that if you took away the light sabers, nobody would recognize the two trilogies as being connected.  The mysteries in Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones are convoluted and not explained to the audience well.  

As a result, I don't feel like Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones are part of the Star Wars Trilogy.  They feel to me like spin-off novels rather than part of the core Star Wars universe.

If I was rating movies on 1-4 stars, I would give Star Wars 4 stars, Empire Strikes Back 3.5 stars, Return of the Jedi 3 stars, Phantom Menace 1 star, and Attack of the Clones 2 stars.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 27, 2005)

Endur said:
			
		

> Phantom Menace    What was this movie about?  I walked out of it barely understanding it.
> Attack of the Clones   More feeling lost in this movie, although we're getting closer.
> 
> My analysis is that if you took away the light sabers, nobody would recognize the two trilogies as being connected. The mysteries in Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones are convoluted and not explained to the audience well.
> ...



Hmm.  I assume you are a fan of the OT based on your ratings, please correct me if I'm wrong.  I'll also assume that you've seen them enough to have a decent familiarity with them.

To that end, I really don't see where you are coming from.  The prequels visually are somewhat unfamiliar because of the clean look in many points but at the same time the dialogue and set-ups should be very familiar.  Take the pod-race for example.  Folks typically either love it or loathe it.  However, it echoes of the original trench run pretty closely in parts and it's very obvious (at least to me).

As to the mysteries of the first two prequels, they directly reflect statements and causes from the OT.  I'm geeking out here on this stuff but not being able to recognize the universes as one is a subjective thing but I had no issue accepting the new films as part of the Star Wars mythos.  At least in feel, tone and plot.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 28, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And am I the only one who finds it interesting how pretty much everyone who speaks in support of these films points out how EVERYBODY ELSE loves them, too (whether by mentioning how everyone else in the theatre was excited, or pointing out how much money they've made, or all the awards they've garnered)? What's that all about?




It's probably just a reaction to the base assumption of a lot of rabid netgeeks that the last 2 SW flicks objectivly sucked, and pretty much everyone thinks so, a 'fact' supported by the rantings of wanna be filmmakers, high school kids who took an art class, etc.  I'd say it's the other way around actually, most people who didn't like them tend to speak of how everyone else didn't like it, factually they sucked, etc. 

I mentioned what I precieved to be the crowd reaction when I saw clones because when I saw them I don't recall a lot of people walking out of the theater talking about how much Clones sucked, or how bad the dialog was, etc.  Most of what I overheard people talking about was how cool the Yoda fight was*.  


*no claim that this is a statisitical validation of my view that they were enjoyable movies.


----------



## Angcuru (Mar 28, 2005)

I agree that one of the big reasons that 1+2 weren't as good as the original triliogy is that we didn't have an arrogant scruffy scoundrel to add some humor to them.  I.E.  Han Solo.  

Just when the drama and special effects started to be overpowering, throw in a funny face or quote from Han you you save the film for another 15 minutes or so.  Without that humor, the trilogy wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining.

In 1+2, you have constant drama and special effects bombarding you with a complete lack of comedy, with the intended comical character i.e. JarJar having the reverse effect.  Replace JarJar with a StarWars-ized Dirty Harry and you save the day.  Jedi can't cut it?  Whip out the biggest blaster in the galaxy.

Also, Lucas has definitely lost his touch.  In writing as well as directing.  So much of the dialogue in 1+2 seemed Forced upon the characters, and Adolescent Anikin was too much of a whiner.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 28, 2005)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> Also, Lucas has definitely lost his touch.  In writing as well as directing.  So much of the dialogue in 1+2 seemed Forced upon the characters, and Adolescent Anikin was too much of a whiner.




So was adolescent Luke.


----------



## Victim (Mar 28, 2005)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> I agree that one of the big reasons that 1+2 weren't as good as the original triliogy is that we didn't have an arrogant scruffy scoundrel to add some humor to them.  I.E.  Han Solo.




Agree.


----------



## mojo1701 (Mar 28, 2005)

Perhaps someone who came with Anakin in Episode I, and was a troublemaker with a heart of gold when he was a kid, and grew up as a somewhat-respectable person who saved young Anakin's life during the Battle of Naboo, so that Anakin could blow up the Droid Control Platform...?

In Episode II, he would've been on break from his studying at the University of Coruscant and got tagged along with Anakin and Padme.

Episode III... he turns melodramatic with the turn of Anakin.

Ok, so Episode III's the only one I haven't figured out.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Mar 28, 2005)

I think it works better with Anakin as a loner, and Obi-Wan being his only real friend. It makes the events of Episode III all the more tragic and you don't have to add in another character and take the focus away from the more important parts.

Of course, I'd love to have had a Han-like character in the prequels, but I'm just not sure how one would FIT without feeling completely tacked on. At least Jar Jar has his place by Ep II.


----------

