Just seen Star Wars - What an pile of steaming horse shit!!! *Spoilers*
Matt Bowman
grown up with the movies, the games, the T-shirts, the Hype. When
Lucasarts bring out a licensed game I often shrug off it's shortcomings
- It's star wars you see - You can forgive the dodgy games, books,
models and endless merchandise because you have such fond memories of
the films themselves - you don't HAVE to accept "Tales from the Mos
Eisly Cantina" as part of the universe if you don't want to, you don't
HAVE to play Droidworks if you don't feel the urge. It is possible to
forgive almost all of the substandard crap surrounding the films because
the films themselves are so strong.
All this changes with the release of Episode one. It is such a hollow,
cynical, desperately disappointing exercise in scamming a public already
disillusioned with shitty summer "blockbusters" that it almost defies
belief.
Obviously the films are the core of the whole "mythology" and when a
film as poor as this is expected to sit alongside such masterful
originals then the whole illusion is destroyed. It's a shame this films
cannot be ignored in the same way as something like "Yoda Stories"
For a generation of children weaned on such summer turkeys as "Lost in
Space" and "Godzilla" I'm sure Episode 1 will be pure gold but for those
whose knowledge of film history goes back even as far as Return of the
Jedi (The only one I'd seen at the cinema before the re-releases) there
is nothing here of interest. Lucas seems to have abandoned his core
audience of fans, the ones that made possible for him to make this
sequel in the first place. There is nothing here for the star wars fan
save a few familiar creature designs and locations as well as a bit of
name dropping (Candidate for Supreme Chancellor Antilles anyone?). To be
honest I enjoyed "Star Trek : First Contact" more than this. At least
the Star Trek films have some respect for their heritage.
I had assumed that the Press reviews were nothing more than bitter
sniping and I went into the film with an open mind but I left saddened
by the weak plot, poor acting and lack of atmosphere - just as I had
been warned I would.
And then there's Jar Jar Bigs (?). I realise that this was, you know,
for kids but all I got was an image of a whole army of Chris Tucker's in
the "Fifth Element". What were they thinking to make an entire species
of Rasta imitating morons, and then giving them more screen time than
all the interesting characters put together. Palpatine was tragically
under used and Darth Maul livened up the screen for the whole four
minutes he was on it.
I'm can hardly even to begin to criticise it as a film, There are too
many faults to mention. The uninspiring plot that had such a weak
central drive, the hurried and confusing action set pieces - the games
will be along shortly, only £34.99. The miserable script and stupid,
accents that took all sincerity out of the actors. Jake Lloyd, who saved
the day so many times he made Wesley Crusher look like a blundering
fool. Princess Leeloo's ever changing costumes that made her seem less
of a character and more of a walking clothes horse. The Climax of the
film - where in 2 of the 3 threads the characters just gave up! There is
so much more wrong with the film but you probably already know this.
What is did get right - such as the visceral lightsabre battles are lost
under the deluge of shit.
If you only see one movie this summer, see "The Matrix", If you see two
movies see "Austin Powers 2", I guess you'll have to go and see what all
the fuss was about at some point though.
Matt Bowman
Buy more Monkey Biscuits at www.monkeybiscuits.com
Doug Kissock
----------
In article <tDzF5AA2...@jungsite.demon.co.uk>, Matt Bowman
Jonathan Gordner
Matt Bowman <Ma...@jungsite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:F99vWHAN...@jungsite.demon.co.uk...
> In article <932674764.14095.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Doug
> Kissock <do...@tweeze.demon.co.uk> writes
> >I couldn't have put it better myself!
>
> >----------
> Matt Bowman
>
> "Due to unexpected delays due to superstition and ignorance the end of the
> world has now been delayed until the next millenium.
> We thank you for you patience."
>
Matt Bowman
<jgor...@home.com> writes
Matt Bowman
Squid
see the connection myself.
Andy
ChocolateCoCo
it.
Matt Bowman wrote in message ...
Simon Gleave
> watch it again. The same thing happened to me. The second time you'll love
> it.
This is a bizarre posting from an obvious Star Wars obsessive and repeats
the sort of thing that was going on in the American newsgroups when the
film opened in May. Now, I don't know about anyone else here but I have
never formed an opinion that a film is a terrible film on first viewing
only to change that view to completely the opposite perspective on second
viewing.
Perhaps 'ChocolateCoCo' would like to explain to us exactly why his
perspective changed so much on second viewing.
Simon
Sam Nelson
Simon Gleave <sh...@city.ac.uk> writes:
| Now, I don't know about anyone else here but I have
| never formed an opinion that a film is a terrible film on first viewing
| only to change that view to completely the opposite perspective on second
| viewing.
|
Lover'. First watching involved significant periods of open-mouthed
astonishment and `did I just see what I think I saw?' and stuff like that.
Second time round it was excellent. It's a question of being prepared for
what you're about to see. I don't see how that could happen in the case of
a Star Wars episode, though.
| Perhaps 'ChocolateCoCo' would like to explain to us exactly why his
| perspective changed so much on second viewing.
|
Narcotics?
--
SAm. (Insert bandwidth-wasting disclaimer here)
`Never trust anything that can think for itself
if you can't see where it keeps its brain'
Jose Cardoso
Simon Gleave <sh...@city.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95q.990723094226.8206B-100000@exeter...
>
> This is a bizarre posting from an obvious Star Wars obsessive and repeats
> the sort of thing that was going on in the American newsgroups when the
> never formed an opinion that a film is a terrible film on first viewing
> only to change that view to completely the opposite perspective on second
> viewing.
>
> perspective changed so much on second viewing.
>
>
Hmm, well I have to say my opinion also changed on second viewing.
Why? I decided to read the novel afterwards to see if I could make sense of
the hollow feeling I had when I watched it the first time round.
The book clearly covers a lot of ground not even hinted at in the film
(Darth Maul is put into a much better perspective) but also showed how empty
Lucas' screenwriting really was. Seeing the film a second time, and knowing
what was in the novel, made it a much more enjoyable experience and put back
a lot of the Star Wars essence captured in episodes 4,5 and 6.
The only question I have now is why was it left to the novel to patch up the
poor film?
--
Jose Cardoso.
Internet Support Consultant,
Gentia Software (UK) Limited.
mailto:jcar...@gentia.block.com
http://www.gentia.com
(Reply by removing the "block" from my e-mail address)
Matt Bowman
ChocolateCoCo <hand...@sprint.ca> writes
>watch it again. The same thing happened to me. The second time you'll love
>it.
>
>
I have absolutly no intention of spending another 4 quid to see that
waste of time - I'm going to see south park tonight instead. (If it's
out)
jack-bob-jimmy
to eventually appreciate them? No, of course not - they were great
movies (of the bubble gum variety, granted) that blew you away the first
time you saw them. TPM apologists should just grow up and face it - the
movie was not just bad, it was a disaster, especially if you happened to
be a die hard SW fan (like me :( ).
Mark Stevens
<Ma...@jungsite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks - It's 9:36 now and I still feel annoyed about that film. :)
I bet you ten quid you'll see it again!
--
Mark Stevens
Mark Stevens
<Ma...@jungsite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
["I hate TPM" guff snipped]
>I'm can hardly even to begin to criticise it as a film, There are too
>many faults to mention.
I think you're overlooking one very important thing. How old were you
when you first saw Star Wars at the cinema? I was five. Now, do you
suppose *that* might have had some bearing on your enjoyment of the
film at the time?
Here's what's happened. The original trilogy was aimed at kids. I was
five years old when I saw Star Wars, eight years old when I saw Empire
and eleven years old when I saw Return of the Jedi. These movies were
for kids. Now, as we've all grown up over the years, we've been
introduced to various continuations of the Star Wars universe, from
books and comics to computer games. All these spin-offs grew up with
the audience.
Now we're back to square one with the original trilogy. The Phantom
Menace is a kids movie, plain and simple. If you don't like it, then I
suspect that's rather more to do with your inability to appreciate it
on that level. Were you expecting the Second Coming? Where you
expecting TPM to do to modern folklore, future generation x-ers and
the film industry in 1999 as Star Wars did in 1977? Don't be silly.
Anyone who went into TPM with those sort of expectations were simply
missing the point.
TPM is no less a well-constructed film than Star Wars. You're now
seeing it with 22 years worth of movie-reading experience behind you.
Alas, TPM *isn't* aimed at the same people who saw and enjoyed the
original movies in the theatre. It's aimed at today's kids. They all
seem to be enjoying it.
>The uninspiring plot that had such a weak central drive...
Funny that, because the plot of TPM is practically identical to Star
Wars. The *story* is different, but the plot's pretty much the same.
>the hurried and confusing action set pieces.
What was so confusing about them?
>The miserable script and stupid, accents that took all sincerity out
>of the actors.
This is a fantasy world populated by make-believe characters. Accents?
The accents in the original trilogy are just as "stupid". If you ask
me, it all adds to the exotic flavour of TPM.
>Jake Lloyd, who saved the day so many times he made Wesley Crusher look
>like a blundering fool.
He won a pod race and accidentally blew up a federation control ship.
That's all.
>Princess Leeloo's ever changing costumes that made her seem less
>of a character and more of a walking clothes horse.
She was a Queen. They were nothing more than regal get-ups. Her people
are very flamboyant and tend towards the stylised. Look at their
architecture, technology and costumes. They are a people who clearly
like things to look good. It's all show and the Queen's fashion sense
simply reflects this. There's too many precedents in our own history
to mention.
>The Climax of the film - where in 2 of the 3 threads the characters just gave up!
Let's see -- Obi Wan went on the mince Maul, Anakin destroyed the
control ship and Amidala succeeded in getting the Gungan to put up a
valiant fight to protect their planet. Hardly giving up, is it?
>If you only see one movie this summer, see "The Matrix".
Well, I thought that was a piece of shit, so I guess we're about
equal.
Ah well, I enjoyed TPM. It was visually stunning, had a great
soundtrack, had solid performances (especially from Portman and
Neeson), had plenty of decent set pieces (pod race & sabre duel) and
was just a thoroughly enjoyable slice of entertainment. It looks like
you were such a big Star Wars fan, any hope of meeting your
expectations was doomed to failure from the start.
Even with the tidal wave of hype looming, I always knew exactly what
TPM was going to be like. It matched my expectations perfectly --
probably because I had them set at a more realistic level.
>If you see two movies see "Austin Powers 2"...
I enjoyed the first one, but if the audience reaction to trailers for
the sequel is anything to go by, it appears that most people still
find it funny when Mike Meyers pulls a goofy face and says, "Groovy,
baby!" for the millionth time. I hope there's a bit more to the film
than this.
Mark Stevens
wrote:
>Where is all this "Jar Jar Binks = Rasta stereotype" coming from?, Couldn't
>see the connection myself.
Jar Jar Binks is played by a black actor. This fact alone makes some
people uncomfortable, so they have to come up with these "ooh, it's
racist!" claims in order to disguise and deflect their discomfort.
Mark Stevens
<muc...@gracias.net> wrote:
>Did you have to watch any of the original trilogy a second or third time
>to eventually appreciate them? No, of course not - they were great
>movies (of the bubble gum variety, granted) that blew you away the first
>time you saw them. TPM apologists should just grow up and face it - the
>movie was not just bad, it was a disaster, especially if you happened to
>be a die hard SW fan (like me :( ).
This is the problem though. The people *most* disappointed with the
film appear to be die-hard SW fanatics. Please answer me this --
because no other die-hard SW fanatic who slated the movie has yet
managed to do so -- *what* were you expecting to see in TPM?
Am I a Star Wars obsessive? Tough question to answer. I saw the
original movies at the cinema when I was a kid and loved them. I had a
few figures and some books. I grew up, watched each movie a couple of
times a year on video. Bought some Star Wars comics, a few novels. Now
I'm in my late-twenties. I buy the odd Star Wars game (but only if
it's a decent game in its own right -- none of this Supremacy shit)
and still buy the odd comic. Star Wars doesn't rule my life though and
never has done.
So, what was I expecting from TPM? Well, you've got to go back to the
original movies first. The reason most of us enjoyed the original
trilogy was quite simple -- because we were all (mostly) kids at the
time. The movies were kids' movies. We were kids. Perfect combination.
But now, things are different. We're no longer kids. Do you still
regularly attend kids' movies and enjoy them? I'm talking about things
like Matilda, The Borrowers, The Indian in the Cupboard, Disney
cartoons, etc. If you don't, then that might possibly explain
something. The Phantom Menace is a kids' movie. Yep, a very big-budget
one, with an all-star cast -- oh, and it happens to be set in the Star
Wars universe. But it's a movie for kids.
Now, as we've grown up over the years since Return of the Jedi, small
parts of the Star Wars universe, as developed through the mountains of
merchandise, have grown up with us. Some of the comics, books, novels
and computer games are aimed at a slightly higher age group than that
of the original movies.
This, I think, is where the die-hard Star Wars fanatics run into
trouble. Because they've been avidly following the Star Wars universe,
watching it grow and unfold before them, they've come to expect
certain things of it -- and those expectations were hoping to be met
with The Phantom Menace. But this didn't happen. Lucas went back to
his roots and produced a movie aimed at the 5-13 year-old age group.
It was *not* aimed at the Star Wars fans in the 25-35 year-old age
group (uncoincidentally, precisely the age group that were queuing up
for months for tickets Stateside) -- although they were quite welcome
to attend, if they so wished.
Now, we've also got to ask ourselves whether or not it was possible
for The Phantom Menace to "do a Star Wars". Here's what the original
Star Wars movie achieved:
1) Kickstarted the summer event movie phenomenon. (Some may argue Jaws
actually did this two years earlier, but certainly not on the scale
Star Wars did).
2) Introudced the concept of mass-market movie merchandising.
3) Brought classic mythology back to an industry (or, indeed, an
entire generation) that had all but forgotten its power.
4) Revolutionised the special-effects industry.
These four elements (there are probably a good few more) are what
gives Star Wars its unique place in film lore and modern culture. And
for many die-hard Star Wars fans (even if, perhaps, they're not
entirely aware of it), these elements give Star Wars that unique
essence that has made it so enjoyable for them over the years.
If Star Wars didn't achieve any of the above, then it would only have
been remembered (if at all), as a quirky low-budget slice of OTT
sci-fi action, with a weak plot, hammy acting and misplaced humour.
Now, 22 years later, and The Phantom Menace is here. It appears that
many die-hard fans were expecting, or at least *hoping*, that TPM
would achieve everything that Star Wars achieved all those years ago.
But, when you sit down to think about it, are these expectations or
hopes in any way realistic? Nope.
Was it possible for TPM to take the summer event movie phenomenon to a
new level? Nope. Could it possibly take the concept of mass-market
merchandising to a new level? Nope. Could it harness an even greater
mythological power than its predecessor? Nope. Could it possibly
revolutionise the special-effects industry? Nope.
That fact that TPM didn't achieve all that automatically made it a
failure in most die-hard fanatics' eyes. Personally, I reckon anyone
that ever thought it could must be seriously deluded and obviously has
no basic grasp or understanding of the way the film industry works.
So, what are we left with? What could TPM possibly do? Well, there was
only one option left really -- simply be an entertaining kids movie
and continue the Star Wars mythology as best it could. That's the only
level on which TPM could possibly work -- and in my opinion it
succeeded admirably. Can you think of any other kids movie that looks
better? Can you think of any other kids movie that has a richer, more
fully-realised fantasy universe? If you can't *and* you still hate TPM
with a passion, then you seriously need to ask yourself what drove you
to your local multiplex last week, because the film you were obviously
expecting to see simply couldn't have existed.
I must admit, I was always worried about TPM. Like any casual Star
Wars fan, I *wanted* a new Star Wars film -- especially one directed
by George Lucas. But it became quite clear, about a year ago, that in
order to enjoy it, you needed to start weighing a few things up. The
die-hards refused to allow their expectations to be compromised by
accepting the fact that TPM might just be nothing more than 135
minutes of fun aimed at kids. You could already see that this
particular brand of fan would be disappointed come Summer 1999.
For the die-hards, Star Wars is a religion and TPM was the Second
Coming of Christ. Ironically enough, as Han Solo himself said (excuse
the possible misquote, but then I'm not a die-hard!), "Hokey religions
and ancient weapons ain't no match for a good blaster at your side."
And do you know what? He's absolutely right. TPM was simply a
well-crafted action movie and was *not* intended to be a religious
experience. Besides, the casual Star Wars fans far outnumber the
die-hard fanatics, so they can't even complain that the movie was
aimed at the wrong people.
Of course, TPM is far from perfect. But then, neither was the original
Star Wars or its sequels. The fact that Star Wars imbedded itself in
late 20th century culture and defined a generation just about allows
it to get away with any shortcomings it had. TPM simply doesn't have
that sort of protection, which makes it more vunerable to attack.
In 20 years time, we'll be looking back on a six-movie legacy that was
of a consistently highly quality, not two entirely contradictory
three-movie legacies of varying quality. Will the die-hard fans who
loved the original trilogy but deeply *hate* TPM ever be won over?
Nope, I don't think they will. At least, not all of them. For some
fanatics, expectations were raised so high, it's practically
impossible to bring them back down. I actually feel quite sorry for
these fans -- if they were a little more analytical about the whole
thing, they might actually grow to like TPM (or its sequels) and
recognise it for the great little kids movie it is.
At the end of the day, TPM continues the Star Wars mythology and does
so in a highly stylished fashion. You either like it, or you don't --
and no-one's really going to be converted from one camp to another. Is
it wrong for people (especially die-hard Star Wars fans) to hate TPM?
Of course not. We've all got our own personal tastes. The die-hards
are obviously enjoying others things. Just be glad you were born at a
time that enabled you to fully experience and enjoy at least *one* of
the six Star Wars movies.
So, come on folks. Let's all join hands and sing songs of love and
peace! (Just not of the Ewok variety, if it's all the same to you.)
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <Eqsm3.2822$V21.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Steve Pang"
<stev...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
How would you have told the story without them?
> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish.
I felt it, must be you. Childish? Really? From a movie? Do tell.
> Poor script.
Like Transformers, it's more than meets the eye. I'll bet there are levels
to the story you missed. There aren't many movies that do even one level
well.
> The Pod
> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
> and with real actors too! What a bonus!
I guess that was one piece of CGI you missed. They put in the actors faces
on some of the scenes in the fight.
>
> The first film was not strictly a kids film was it?
Nope, not strictly for anyone, same here. Some people just got more cynical
> It was for teenagers -
> the emerging 'nerd' culture of which Lucas himself was part. Remember, Star
> Wars includes a graphic scene of an alien getting his arm chopped off, burnt
> corpses of Luke's guardians and of Jawas (!), and big close-ups of a droid
> designed to torture human beings. It had more convincing emotional
> relationships too (Luke vs. Han, Han & Chewy, Luke and Ben etc. etc.)
>
> I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
> will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
> we have done.
Sorry you feel that way. I saw it and
>
> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
Lucas fully expects to lose 50% of his audience over the next two films.
He's going in a different direction which he thinks the fans might not like
since it is such a departure from the regular films.
I'll still watch them.
wes
>
>
>
>
> ------
>
> "It's a small world...but I wouldn't want to paint it." Steven Wright.
>
> stev...@clara.co.uk
>
> ----------
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <7ndkaj$2j2$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Mark Palmer L.L.B. (Hons)"
<ma...@jedipalmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> glad to see tha t some one is not afraid to express how they feel about the
> movie without worrying about upsetting the newasgroup or lucas worshippers
If you are incapable of discerning the difference between what he did and
what you do then I suggest you read it again.
As to Lucas Worshipers. Who exactly would that be. Don't be shy. Name people
here, then when we finish pointing out how wrong you are you can go over to
Deja and read it for yourself.
wes
>
> join in my is starwars sacred debate - its a laff
> Steve Pang <stev...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Eqsm3.2822$V21.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>>
>> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the
> action -
>> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script. The
> Pod
>> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
>> and with real actors too! What a bonus!
>>
>> The first film was not strictly a kids film was it? It was for teenagers -
>> the emerging 'nerd' culture of which Lucas himself was part. Remember,
> Star
>> Wars includes a graphic scene of an alien getting his arm chopped off,
> burnt
>> corpses of Luke's guardians and of Jawas (!), and big close-ups of a droid
>> designed to torture human beings. It had more convincing emotional
>> relationships too (Luke vs. Han, Han & Chewy, Luke and Ben etc. etc.)
>>
>> I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
>> will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
>> we have done.
>>
>> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>>
>>
>>
>>
Mark Palmer L.L.B. (Hons)
movie without worrying about upsetting the newasgroup or lucas worshippers
join in my is starwars sacred debate - its a laff
PropheT
I know it's all "flowers and politics" at the mo, but that was always how
the early days of the Rebellion were described as anyway. Or have I been
following an entirely different story that JUST SO HAPPENS to be called Star
Wars as well?
Trust me, although this first film was a disappointment (mainly because of
FAR TOO MUCH speculation), just think of all the "juicy" story development
that's coming up! The fall of the Senate, Palpy takes control and
eventually produces his clone armies ("YIPPEE!!!" as a certain irritating
little 'person' would say), and of course the development of the Rebellion
and the different factions within it. Now, honestly, can you say that
sounds dull? Hopefully the politics part will be done with far more depth
and maturity than in TPM, and even if he doesn't, we still have two
potentially amazing films to rival the best in the series so far, namely
ESB. The next two films I'm sure are going to be AT LEAST as dark as ESB,
if not more so. Remember, the next two films will tell the story of how
everything we saw when we were kids (namely the Skywalker Trilogy; Eps 4,5 &
6) came about.
I will be extremely shocked, not to mention bitterly dissapointed if the
next two films fail to illustrate this dark time for the Star Wars galaxy.
"Be patient young Padawan...", and enjoy!!!
---PropheT---
"All too easy..."
Andie
> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script.
I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
As for the script, it's not much different from the orignal trilogy where
standards come in.
>
> I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
> will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
> we have done.
Only time will tell.
>
>
> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
Who cares, SW fans will still watch it.
--
"Don't defy the Council, Master. Not again."
Tommy Maguire
action -
> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script.
But in what way did the script itself differ from the original ?
>The Pod
> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
> and with real actors too! What a bonus!
Yeah, real actors in a totally CG invironment.
>
> The first film was not strictly a kids film was it?
I would say it was. Lucas has said it was a young boys film, much like the
old Flash Gordon series he watched when he was young. I think what appealed
most about the original to such a wide audience was the on screen images and
ideas that were done so well for a film from that era. The Star Destroyer
coming overhead, the attack on the Death Star, the droids and aliens, sabre
duels, gunfights with laser bolts instead of bullets, wonderful John
Williams score etc. This was like nothing seen before anywhere at that
time. It didn't really matter about poor script, slightly stale acting etc.
It was that visual wizardry that amazed everyone that seen it. And it was
this "fix" that got us all hooked. And that is really why we fell in love
with Star Wars. I remember reading Scorsese and Speilbergs reactions when
they first seen Star Wars without many of the effects and minus John
Williams music. Their initial reaction was it would bomb, it could never
work. When the effects were finished and added I would say they were not to
long changing their minds :-)
>It was for teenagers -
> the emerging 'nerd' culture of which Lucas himself was part. Remember,
Star
> Wars includes a graphic scene of an alien getting his arm chopped off,
burnt
> corpses of Luke's guardians and of Jawas (!), and big close-ups of a droid
> designed to torture human beings. It had more convincing emotional
> relationships too (Luke vs. Han, Han & Chewy, Luke and Ben etc. etc.)
Yes, some of the images from the original were graphic enough to raise a few
eyebrows. But let's not forget, most kids fairytales have such scenes
involving questionable moments such as wolves and witches being cut into
tiny pieces, witches eating children, giants grinding bones, all very
graphic images. Laughable, but graphic nonetheless. But I don't believe
you need such graphic scenes to heighten interest or appeal.
>
> I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
> will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
> we have done.
I think it is quite possible they will grow out of it as illustrated in my
point earlier. What we see in TPM is wonderful to look at but we have
pretty much seen it all, in parts, in other films before it.
>
> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>
It will be darker, apparently. It all depends on what you believe to be
good in a Star Wars movie. The darkness of ESB or the lightness of ROTJ ?
That in itself, to an extent, will determine how good and how popular
episode 2 will be.
Gary Couzens
Mark Stevens wrote in message <379d2bd5...@news.clara.net>...
>On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:18:11 -0700, jack-bob-jimmy
><muc...@gracias.net> wrote:
>
>>Did you have to watch any of the original trilogy a second or third time
>>to eventually appreciate them? No, of course not - they were great
>>movies (of the bubble gum variety, granted) that blew you away the first
>>time you saw them. TPM apologists should just grow up and face it - the
>>movie was not just bad, it was a disaster, especially if you happened to
>>be a die hard SW fan (like me :( ).
>
>This is the problem though. The people *most* disappointed with the
>film appear to be die-hard SW fanatics. Please answer me this --
>because no other die-hard SW fanatic who slated the movie has yet
>managed to do so -- *what* were you expecting to see in TPM?
>
the biggest DHSWF I know (aged 29) thought Phantom Menace was terrific good
and has so far seen it twice (in Canada, before it came out - she has
relatives and friends there). When I said I'd found TPM pretty tedious,
especially for the first 90-odd minutes, her response was "well, you're not
a Star Wars fan".
Well, I guess I'm not. I enjoyed the original trilogy (which I have on
widescreen video) and saw all three special editions two years ago. But I
don't watch the films time and again, I don't buy books and merchandise. I
suppose that's the difference between someone who likes Star Wars and a fan
(or cultist).
>So, what was I expecting from TPM? Well, you've got to go back to the
>original movies first. The reason most of us enjoyed the original
>trilogy was quite simple -- because we were all (mostly) kids at the
>time. The movies were kids' movies. We were kids. Perfect combination.
>
The reason I enjoyed them then and did so again two years ago at the age of
thirty-two (except for the second half of "Jedi") was because they are good
films of their type, and "Empire" (the best made, best scripted and best
paced of all of them) is an excellent film by any standard.
>But now, things are different. We're no longer kids. Do you still
>regularly attend kids' movies and enjoy them? I'm talking about things
>like Matilda, The Borrowers, The Indian in the Cupboard, Disney
>cartoons, etc.
Well, yes I do. As a part-time film reviewer, I get invited to children's
films quite often. But I have been known to pay to see them too, as I did
with "The Borrowers" from your list above, and (another example) "Fairytale
A True Story". (I have no children, before anyone asks.) The best children's
films are excellent films by any standards. I'd add the recent Warners
adaptations of "A Little Princess" and and "The Secret Garden". Since
they're both based on books by the same writer (Frances Hodgson Burnett),
it's interesting to compare the two films as they're very different in tone,
but that's a different thread.
The first principle with children's films is that you can't or shouldn't
excuse a bad film as "it's just for kids". Yes, younger and more uncritical
viewers may say they enjoy it, but watch them shift uncomfortably and
complain when watching a bad kid's film - "Super Mario Bros" comes to mind
here.
>This, I think, is where the die-hard Star Wars fanatics run into
>trouble. Because they've been avidly following the Star Wars universe,
>watching it grow and unfold before them, they've come to expect
>certain things of it -- and those expectations were hoping to be met
>with The Phantom Menace. But this didn't happen. Lucas went back to
>his roots and produced a movie aimed at the 5-13 year-old age group.
>It was *not* aimed at the Star Wars fans in the 25-35 year-old age
>group (uncoincidentally, precisely the age group that were queuing up
>for months for tickets Stateside)
How do you suggest 5-13 year olds would be *allowed* to queue up for days on
end?
Here's what the original
>Star Wars movie achieved:
>
>1) Kickstarted the summer event movie phenomenon. (Some may argue Jaws
> actually did this two years earlier, but certainly not on the scale
> Star Wars did).
>
Only relatively, as "Jaws" was the Box Office Number One in its day. Better
to say that Lucas and Spielberg between them identified a coming trend and
were in a position to capitalise on it.
<The rest snipped>
Clearly this is a difference of opinion and we can only say why we liked or
didn't like about this film, or any other. Before I saw the film, I very
deliberately tried to keep an open mind (having heard positive as well as
negative things about it). And what I found was a weakly-plotted, not that
good looking film (I pay a lot of attention to cinematography, so that may
be just me), overstuffed with CGI effects (presumably because they could,
not because they fitted), with flat, uninteresting characters and poor
dialogue. The special effects were good, especially when things picked up
in the last half hour, and the three-way lightsabre duel was very well done.
But overall I found it disappointing. "Jurassic Park", six years ago, comes
to mind - much anticipation (a perennial interest in dinosaurs in place of
the 22 years of baggage Star Wars carries) followed by disappointment in the
end result. I wonder if Episode II, in three years' time, will have quite so
high expectations.
Gary Couzens
Matt Bowman
<ma...@headspin.clara.net> writes
>On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:18:11 -0700, jack-bob-jimmy
><muc...@gracias.net> wrote:
>
>>Did you have to watch any of the original trilogy a second or third time
>>to eventually appreciate them? No, of course not - they were great
>>movies (of the bubble gum variety, granted) that blew you away the first
>>time you saw them. TPM apologists should just grow up and face it - the
>>movie was not just bad, it was a disaster, especially if you happened to
>>be a die hard SW fan (like me :( ).
>
>This is the problem though. The people *most* disappointed with the
>film appear to be die-hard SW fanatics. Please answer me this --
>because no other die-hard SW fanatic who slated the movie has yet
>managed to do so -- *what* were you expecting to see in TPM?
>
films, especially good sci-fi films.
>So, what was I expecting from TPM? Well, you've got to go back to the
>original movies first. The reason most of us enjoyed the original
>trilogy was quite simple -- because we were all (mostly) kids at the
>time. The movies were kids' movies. We were kids. Perfect combination.
>
and still enjoy it just as much as some 10 year old kid. The original
films may have been kids movies but they were not so pathetically
childish and moronic as this new film, which seems to be aimed
exclusively and kids.
>But now, things are different. We're no longer kids. Do you still
>regularly attend kids' movies and enjoy them? I'm talking about things
>like Matilda, The Borrowers, The Indian in the Cupboard, Disney
>cartoons, etc. If you don't, then that might possibly explain
>something. The Phantom Menace is a kids' movie. Yep, a very big-budget
>one, with an all-star cast -- oh, and it happens to be set in the Star
>Wars universe. But it's a movie for kids.
>
just a movie for kids - its IS (or should have been a special event). A
sequel to a fantastic series of movies - the continuation of one of the
most enduring sci-fi universes I've ever seen - of course I had high
expectations originally - I had a right to! However, I left all that at
the cinema door and went in totally open minded - prepared to judge the
film on it's own merits and it failed on every count other than the SFX
>Now, as we've grown up over the years since Return of the Jedi, small
>parts of the Star Wars universe, as developed through the mountains of
>merchandise, have grown up with us. Some of the comics, books, novels
>and computer games are aimed at a slightly higher age group than that
>of the original movies.
>
>This, I think, is where the die-hard Star Wars fanatics run into
>trouble. Because they've been avidly following the Star Wars universe,
>watching it grow and unfold before them, they've come to expect
>certain things of it -- and those expectations were hoping to be met
>with The Phantom Menace. But this didn't happen. Lucas went back to
>his roots and produced a movie aimed at the 5-13 year-old age group.
>It was *not* aimed at the Star Wars fans in the 25-35 year-old age
>group (uncoincidentally, precisely the age group that were queuing up
>for months for tickets Stateside) -- although they were quite welcome
>to attend, if they so wished.
>
to see TPM (over 3 nights)
>If Star Wars didn't achieve any of the above, then it would only have
>been remembered (if at all), as a quirky low-budget slice of OTT
>sci-fi action, with a weak plot, hammy acting and misplaced humour.
>
Er, if you say so. I prefer to think it will be remembered for it's
strengths as a film,
>Was it possible for TPM to take the summer event movie phenomenon to a
>new level? Nope. Could it possibly take the concept of mass-market
>merchandising to a new level? Nope. Could it harness an even greater
>mythological power than its predecessor? Nope. Could it possibly
>revolutionise the special-effects industry? Nope.
>
It could never live up to the hype = but I ignored that anyway so as not
to get any spoilers. (sad huh? :) )
>That fact that TPM didn't achieve all that automatically made it a
>failure in most die-hard fanatics' eyes. Personally, I reckon anyone
>that ever thought it could must be seriously deluded and obviously has
>no basic grasp or understanding of the way the film industry works.
>
NO. I stated in my original post why I thought this films was a failure
and it has nothing to do with film politics. I hate it because it is a
bad movie, plain and simple. Because of that one reason it does not
deserve to sit alongside the other movies. Even Return of the Jedi had
some good things about it that the Ewoks didn't manage to spoil. Maybe
the other two movies will redeem it somehow.
>So, what are we left with? What could TPM possibly do? Well, there was
>only one option left really -- simply be an entertaining kids movie
>and continue the Star Wars mythology as best it could. That's the only
>level on which TPM could possibly work -- and in my opinion it
>succeeded admirably. Can you think of any other kids movie that looks
>better? Can you think of any other kids movie that has a richer, more
>fully-realised fantasy universe? If you can't *and* you still hate TPM
>with a passion, then you seriously need to ask yourself what drove you
>to your local multiplex last week, because the film you were obviously
>expecting to see simply couldn't have existed.
>
Just because it has great FX does not mean it has a fully realised
universe -That comes from our knowledge of the universe already. During
the film we have no time at all to appreciate it, there are no lingering
long shots, no attention given to the incredible detail that is lavished
on the scenery. Remember that scene in Star wars where Luke stands under
the twin suns of Tatooie - exactly - there is nothing comparable in TPM,
nothing that gives a sense of the world that the characters inhabit.
That relies in timing and judgement, TPM has neither and the couple of
swift exterior shots designed t make up for this do not give the film a
great sense of place
>Of course, TPM is far from perfect. But then, neither was the original
>Star Wars or its sequels. The fact that Star Wars imbedded itself in
>late 20th century culture and defined a generation just about allows
>it to get away with any shortcomings it had. TPM simply doesn't have
>that sort of protection, which makes it more vunerable to attack.
>
Nothing is perfect but some things that were made in the seventies
(notably movies) are considerably better than the y are in the nineties.
>In 20 years time, we'll be looking back on a six-movie legacy that was
>of a consistently highly quality, not two entirely contradictory
>three-movie legacies of varying quality. Will the die-hard fans who
>loved the original trilogy but deeply *hate* TPM ever be won over?
>Nope, I don't think they will. At least, not all of them. For some
>fanatics, expectations were raised so high, it's practically
>impossible to bring them back down. I actually feel quite sorry for
>these fans -- if they were a little more analytical about the whole
>thing, they might actually grow to like TPM (or its sequels) and
>recognise it for the great little kids movie it is.
>
Perhaps we don't want to see kids movies any longer. Even if what you
were saying was true then kids movies ought to appeal to the parents who
are forced to sit next to them. Did you enjoy Aladdin? I did even though
I wasn't 5 when I saw it. That's because the film was not consistently
puerile. It had aspects which went over the kids heads without stopping
it being a kids movie. The lion king too - shit, if Disney can make
enjoyable kids movies then why not Lucas?
>At the end of the day, TPM continues the Star Wars mythology and does
>so in a highly stylished fashion. You either like it, or you don't --
>and no-one's really going to be converted from one camp to another. Is
>it wrong for people (especially die-hard Star Wars fans) to hate TPM?
>Of course not. We've all got our own personal tastes. The die-hards
>are obviously enjoying others things. Just be glad you were born at a
>time that enabled you to fully experience and enjoy at least *one* of
>the six Star Wars movies.
>
Yeah, but a great many of us didn't enjoy it.
>So, come on folks. Let's all join hands and sing songs of love and
>peace! (Just not of the Ewok variety, if it's all the same to you.)
>
what shall we sing?
...and Gerthein Boersma
>> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
>> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script.
>
>I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
>He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
Energetic, yes. Another appropriate term would be "over-animated".
>As for the script, it's not much different from the orignal trilogy where
>standards come in.
The differences are too numerous to list.
>> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>
>Who cares, SW fans will still watch it.
"I care".
- Gerthein (-o-)
-----------------------------
g e r t h e i n @ w x s . n l
-----------------------------
FrMerrin
>watch it again. The same thing happened to me. The second time you'll love
>it.
>
I've seen it twice. Second time, it just seemed even more tedious.
Mike
"You pilots are such men !"
"Hey honey, they don't call this the cockpit for nothing"
(Airport 80 The Concorde)
Simon Grierson
action -
> you didn't really feel you were 'there'.
Too much CGI? It's either that or models - and models could not have
produced the dramatic scenes like the Gungan frontier battle, the lavish
cityscapes in Couriscant and Naboo.
If your referring to Jar Jar Binks and the other cgi puppets - I'd rather
see CGI than rubber puppets like Yoda (who looked fake by comparison).
FIne, if that's what you like, then take it as you will. Remember, though,
if Lucas had done it all using models and Puppets he'd be laughed off the
planet by the majority of filmgoers after a decade and a half of computer
generated imagery (starting with Tron....)
>Too childish. Poor script.
Too childish? You mean the politicla manuouverings of Palpatine to get his
place as the Supreme chancellor, the lavish fight scenes, the inner-workings
of the senate - all at the same level as The Rugrats movie?
Poor script? OK - maybe it's no oscar winner, but it's no worse than any
other StarWars movie......
The Pod
> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
> and with real actors too! What a bonus!
So your complaining that there wasn't enough "action?" Prey tell, what DID
you want? Big space fleets fighting in the skies?
>
> The first film was not strictly a kids film was it? It was for teenagers -
> the emerging 'nerd' culture of which Lucas himself was part. Remember,
Star
> Wars includes a graphic scene of an alien getting his arm chopped off,
burnt
> corpses of Luke's guardians and of Jawas (!), and big close-ups of a droid
> designed to torture human beings. It had more convincing emotional
> relationships too (Luke vs. Han, Han & Chewy, Luke and Ben etc. etc.)
Err, hundreds of Gungans being slaughtered, Qui-gon-Jin being stabbed
fatally, Darth Maul being sliced in half?
As for convincing emotional relationships - well, the relationship between
the charactors in A new hope had hardly developed at all. The relationship
between Amidala and Anakin is beginning to show signs of what it will become
when they produce the sprogs known as Lea and Luke.....And what about poor
Anakin saying goodbye to his mother? Was that not full of emotion?????
>
> I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
> will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
> we have done.
Well, time will tell. I suspect, however, that this movie will be accepted
more readily by children and by the time they are teenagers, will have a 6
part story to be told in it's entirety - which will effectively mean they
have a whole that is greater than the sum of it's parts.
>
> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>
>
>
>
Mrs Jar Jar Binks©
Steve Pang <stev...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Eqsm3.2822$V21.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>
> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the
action -
I disagree, the CGI was good. There was not too much of it, it was
necessary.
> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script.
Nope, it is just the first of three and I think we will have to see all of
them to apprecate this one fully.
The Pod
> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
and with real actors too! What a bonus!
Yes the pod race was brilliant and It didn't strike me until today that
Sebulba's pod sounds like a canal boat engine. The light sabre duel's were
brilliant, well worth a second veiwing and even a third.
>
> The first film was not strictly a kids film was it? It was for teenagers -
> the emerging 'nerd' culture of which Lucas himself was part.
Nerd Culture? Because someone like star wars they are a nerd?
Remember, Star
> Wars includes a graphic scene of an alien getting his arm chopped off,
burnt
> corpses of Luke's guardians and of Jawas (!), and big close-ups of a droid
> designed to torture human beings. It had more convincing emotional
> relationships too (Luke vs. Han, Han & Chewy, Luke and Ben etc. etc.)
Yes there were less of the emotional relasionships, but this was a totally
dffernet formual altogether.
>
> I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
> will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
> we have done.
>
I think you may be right. I loved the film personally, but I think the
charm will not last as long as the trilogy.
> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>
It will be better, it will another differnet formaula too. We will just
have to wait and see.
--
What yet? Monstairs out dare! Leak'n in here, all'n sink'n, an nooooo power!
You nutsen! WHEN YOUSA TINK WESA IN TROUBLE?!!?
Mesa promise nutten, Mesa onlay Impleye.
If yousa do yousa most grand today, Whateva happens will be fur da most
grand.
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <379b4553...@news.wxs.nl>, gert...@wxs.nl (...and Gerthein
Boersma) wrote:
> Et tu, Andie?
>
>>> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
>>> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script.
>>
>>I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
>>He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
>
> Energetic, yes. Another appropriate term would be "over-animated".
As opposed to under-animated?
>
>>As for the script, it's not much different from the orignal trilogy where
>>standards come in.
>
> The differences are too numerous to list.
Well at least that points to an ability to distinguish "A" difference.
>
>>> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>>
>>Who cares, SW fans will still watch it.
>
> "I care".
Luke old buddy, the films will be made. Lucas will decide how it gets made.
This is not a voting process.
wes
Derek Watson
> when you first saw Star Wars at the cinema? I was five. Now, do you
> suppose *that* might have had some bearing on your enjoyment of the
> film at the time?
>
> Here's what's happened. The original trilogy was aimed at kids. I was
> five years old when I saw Star Wars, eight years old when I saw Empire
> and eleven years old when I saw Return of the Jedi. These movies were
> for kids. Now, as we've all grown up over the years, we've been
> introduced to various continuations of the Star Wars universe, from
> books and comics to computer games. All these spin-offs grew up with
> the audience.
>
> Now we're back to square one with the original trilogy. The Phantom
> Menace is a kids movie, plain and simple. If you don't like it, then I
> suspect that's rather more to do with your inability to appreciate it
> on that level. Were you expecting the Second Coming? Where you
> expecting TPM to do to modern folklore, future generation x-ers and
> the film industry in 1999 as Star Wars did in 1977? Don't be silly.
> Anyone who went into TPM with those sort of expectations were simply
> missing the point.
That is it in a nutshell, I saw it last night and it was pretty much as
I believed it would be, a kids movie for kids today, I am not a kid but
I really enjoyed it.
Star Wars is a collective story it and it has to begin somewhere, this
was a good film, it eases you into the Star Wars universe and when
episodes two and three are made and all three are viewed together then
it will be fantastic.
Infact I have only two slight niggles about TPM,
1. Darth Maul was not used nearly as much as he could have been.
2. There were too many creatures in the underwater sequence but the
effects were so good that I wasn`t really too bothered.
Roll on Episode II
:-)
Derek
Simon Grierson
>
> My point about CGI is that there is just something strangely 'distancing'
> about them. When I think about the Hoth and Dagoba scenes in Empire, or
even
> the shots of plain old treetops with spacecraft flying off over them, they
> just seemed infinitly more realistic - if felt like you were there and not
> that you were watching CGI. And I still think the AT-AT's looked more
> realistic than the battle tanks or whatever theywere called in EP1. It's a
> weird effect, totally subjective, I'm sure.
I think the point is, that mostly nobody could tell the difference between
CGI and real world stuff. For example, the palace was not CGI but was infact
a palace in Italy.
Another example would be the spacestations, and some of the charactors. A
lot of the time it was a mixture of both CGI and live action superimposed
with each other.
>
> A great set is still better than the best CGI background, IMO. But then
you
> have the cost/studio space/time implications.
Quite. That's why Titanic cost as much as it did, even when the did have all
those lovely trend setting CGI effects.
Take even Waterworld - they could have cut the budget in half if they did
more CGI.
I doubt Ep 1 would be made on the scale it has without CGI.
> Take the lightsabre duel in
> EP1: Just think how much better that sequence could have been (although it
> is a great sequence anyway - best in the movie for me) if Lucas had paid
for
> that gigantic set to have been built: He would have had the freedom to
shoot
> it from all angles, move the camera freely.
To the contrary - the freedom CGI allows him is precicely this. You can have
a camera virtually anywhere in a CGI world. The danger is not that it
restricts - but that it gives TOO much freedom. A great scene can be made
rubbish just by the overuse of obscure and impossible camera angles. This is
the msitake (I feel anyway) that a lot of CGI artists fall into when making
things like Reeboot, Transformers: Beastwars, etc, etc.
> Sometimes the best way to shoot
> a scene isn't apparent until you walk around the set.
Perhaps, but don't forget that you can move anywhere in the virtual set
beforehand too.
> Similarly can you
> imagine if that duel had been done as all CGI - Obi Wan, Maul and all?? It
> would have looked ****ing terrible! That is because even with
> state-of-the-art computers and the geniuses at ILM, it is still impossible
> to create a totally convincing CGI character that can walk and talk 100%
> convincingly - take Boss Nass and Binks as examples.
Were a while off human charactors being done entirely in CGI although
Titanic did a splendid job of this.
B|esides, well, they were aliens that they did in CGI - and given the
technology, I think they looked far more convincing than what could have
been (ever seen Space Precinct?)
>Chewy was just a man in
> a hairy suit but wasn't it a brilliant illusion? You just accept that the
> character is a wookie - a real character.
Excuse me, but the charactor of Jar Jar binks was convincing enough for me.
Yes, we knew he was an animation, but being an animation doesn't stop
somthing having charactor. The success of Disney et al will attest to that!
> And take the shot in the pod race where Anakin's pod speeds past and the
> camera pans to the kids cheering and jumping. I don't think anyone truly
> believed in that moment.
Given that I thought that tthey where real people in costumes, I dont know
how you could have come to that conclusion!
(kenny baker was in the blue faced creature (greedo's uncle? :-) ))
>You just know that it's all pixels mixed in with
> live action.
Since they weren,t I suspect there's an element of over-criticism here....
> I don't know, I work in the industry so maybe I'm being
> hypercritical. I just think CGI put a slight, subconcious barrier between
> the action and the audience.
I respect that you feel CGI is warping the movie industry, and you probably
feel that Models and hand made latex masks are better, - but this is your
opinion.
A large part of the problem is that now audiences have come to expect
nothing short of astounding visuals in a movie - and if Ep1 was to
succsesfully fit in with sci-fi series/movies etc, like The Matrix, Star
Trek, Babylon 5, Earth: Final Conflict, Starship Troopers, Lost in Space,
etc, etc, etc -, then the meothods used had to be .
Imagine if they had used traditional modelling and latex masks. Aliens would
just be people in rubber masks, or puppets. Puppets are so unconvincing -
take Yoda for example. By comparison, he looks stiff - his movement looks
just like a kids cartoon charactor. We forgive this because, well, he's
Yoda!
I find it quite funny though, having read articles and books on how this
movie was made, that critics have gone out of their way to find fault with
the visual effects in this movie.
A classic was when a TV critic was pointing out how, when talking to Jar Jar
Binks, none of the actors were looking in the right direction or looking
blank as if talking to thin air. This was a criticism leveled at the CGI
charactors. What is funny about this is, the critic does not know that when
filming, the actor who did Jar Jar's voice, was on set - with a Jar Jar mask
on his head, doing his lines. He was later replaced with CGI.
Also there were models used, rubber masks, the lot. The truth be told, I
dont think most people can tell which are which. You've fallen into that
trap yourself by criticising a scene for being CGI when infact it wasn't.
(source, the Episode 1: making of guide).
It's just a trap that Ep1 couldn't fail but fall into. It had to be special,
otherwise it'd be deemed a pile of doodoo. Even though Lucas has put some of
the most amazing visual effects in there, he STILL gets criticised for it.
NOTHING would be adequate, because a handfull of critics and moviegoers
where sitting there LOOKING for faults int he effects.
Why? I don't know. Maybe it's just to see that chink in the franchis's
armour. It's probably the same reason Star Trek gets knocked, or the same
reason some people hate anything that's popular.
Another theory could be that some wanted to see the same look and feel of
the original trilogy - rubber puppets and all. Same thing happened to Dr
Who when it got remade for amaerican TV. No more wobbly sets and latex
masks - proper CGI special effects. Looked TOO good.
Anyway, gotta go now. Ranted too much.
Adam Burakowski
Steve Pang wrote:
> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script. The Pod
> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
> and with real actors too! What a bonus!
The Pod Race was completely CG, a great deal of the lightsabre duel was
CG(backgrounds). Seems you rather need to rethink your statement.
And "too much CG" is a worthless comment, because CG is great, sure there are
some flaws still here and there, but much better then conventional effects.
>
>
> The first film was not strictly a kids film was it? It was for teenagers -
> the emerging 'nerd' culture of which Lucas himself was part. Remember, Star
> Wars includes a graphic scene of an alien getting his arm chopped off, burnt
> corpses of Luke's guardians and of Jawas (!), and big close-ups of a droid
> designed to torture human beings. It had more convincing emotional
> relationships too (Luke vs. Han, Han & Chewy, Luke and Ben etc. etc.)
Maul getting cut in half.
A ton of droids dying(sure, they're droid, but you mentioned one).
Etc...
>
>
> I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
> will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
> we have done.
Yeah, sure :P
>
>
> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
Sure, it could be better, it could be either one. Guess you'll have to wait and
see.
>
>
> ------
>
> "It's a small world...but I wouldn't want to paint it." Steven Wright.
>
> stev...@clara.co.uk
>
> ----------
Adam Burakowski
Adam Burakowski
> I think it is quite possible they will grow out of it as illustrated in my
> point earlier. What we see in TPM is wonderful to look at but we have
> pretty much seen it all, in parts, in other films before it.
>
You ever seen this Japenese(chinese)film that Lucas partly based Star Wars off
of?
I forget the name, and the person that made it died not too long ago...something
Kurosawa I believe.
Someone can point it out to you :)
But apparently the parrallels between *that* and Star Wars are quite a bit more
then anything in TPM to anything else.
Adam Burakowski
Tommy Maguire
Adam Burakowski <cool...@netrover.com> wrote in message
> You ever seen this Japenese(chinese)film that Lucas partly based Star Wars
off
> of?
> I forget the name, and the person that made it died not too long
ago...something
> Kurosawa I believe.
> Someone can point it out to you :)
> But apparently the parrallels between *that* and Star Wars are quite a bit
more
> then anything in TPM to anything else.
I didn't mean the story, I meant the visuals. The visuals of ANH at that
time were nothing that had been seen before. At that time, they were truly
captivating. Where as the visuals in TPM, CGI, are now commonplace in most
movies. And that is why it will not be cherished by young viewers as much
now as the original was back in '77.
Incidentley, try Joseph Campbell's The Heroes Journey for comparisons to the
Lucas vision of Star Wars.
Andie
> Et tu, Andie?
>
> >> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
> >> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script.
> >
> >I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
> >He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
>
> Energetic, yes. Another appropriate term would be "over-animated".
Take a look at Ahmed Best's gait, with his arms swinging, when he's Jar Jar.
>
>
> >As for the script, it's not much different from the orignal trilogy where
> >standards come in.
>
> The differences are too numerous to list.
Standards-wise?
...and Gerthein Boersma
>>>I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
>>>He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
>>
>> Energetic, yes. Another appropriate term would be "over-animated".
>
>As opposed to under-animated?
As opposed to animating it with the care and restraint that the creation of
a fully CGI Star Wars alien requires, to prevent it from becoming an overly
jittery cartoon character.
>>>As for the script, it's not much different from the orignal trilogy where
>>>standards come in.
>>
>> The differences are too numerous to list.
>
>Well at least that points to an ability to distinguish "A" difference.
Um... yeah!
>>>> Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>>>
>>>Who cares, SW fans will still watch it.
>>
>> "I care".
>
>Luke old buddy, the films will be made. Lucas will decide how it gets made.
>This is not a voting process.
Worry not, I don't delude myself into thinking that I can influence the way
the next movie is made, although I can hope that some of the feedback will
inspire Lucas to do a bit better than TPM. Nevertheless, "Who cares if EP2
is any worse, SW fans will still watch it" strikes me as the most idiotic
notion since Emperor Palpatine said "You know what this throne room needs?
A big ol' reactor shaft! Just for a lark!".
...and Gerthein Boersma
>> >I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
>> >He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
>>
>> Energetic, yes. Another appropriate term would be "over-animated".
>
>Take a look at Ahmed Best's gait, with his arms swinging, when he's Jar Jar.
I have. I couldn't help but notice that the man's facial features remained
largely in an un-jiggled position.
>> >As for the script, it's not much different from the orignal trilogy where
>> >standards come in.
>>
>> The differences are too numerous to list.
>
>Standards-wise?
Standards-wise.
Andie
> Et tu, Andie?
>
> >> >I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
> >> >He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
> >>
> >> Energetic, yes. Another appropriate term would be "over-animated".
> >
> >Take a look at Ahmed Best's gait, with his arms swinging, when he's Jar Jar.
>
> I have. I couldn't help but notice that the man's facial features remained
> largely in an un-jiggled position.
>
He has a slight limitation - he isn't Gungan ;)
Sangraal
<ma...@headspin.clara.net> writes
>>I'm can hardly even to begin to criticise it as a film, There are too
>>many faults to mention.
>I think you're overlooking one very important thing. How old were you
>when you first saw Star Wars at the cinema? I was five. Now, do you
>suppose *that* might have had some bearing on your enjoyment of the
>film at the time?
For me, I was 10. But, no, that has no bearing. Star Wars stands re-
watching because it has merits as a well-constructed, sharply scripted
and enjoyably acted space fantasy adventure... Phantom Menace, on the
other hand....
>
>Here's what's happened. The original trilogy was aimed at kids. I was
>five years old when I saw Star Wars, eight years old when I saw Empire
>and eleven years old when I saw Return of the Jedi. These movies were
>for kids. Now, as we've all grown up over the years, we've been
>introduced to various continuations of the Star Wars universe, from
>books and comics to computer games. All these spin-offs grew up with
>the audience.
>
>Now we're back to square one with the original trilogy. The Phantom
>Menace is a kids movie, plain and simple. If you don't like it, then I
>suspect that's rather more to do with your inability to appreciate it
>on that level.
Not so. My dislike was due to its shoddy construction as a movie. I'm
perfectly in touch with my inner child, thank you.
> Were you expecting the Second Coming? Where you
>expecting TPM to do to modern folklore, future generation x-ers and
>the film industry in 1999 as Star Wars did in 1977? Don't be silly.
>Anyone who went into TPM with those sort of expectations were simply
>missing the point.
As, it seems, was anyone going in expecting two hours of quality film
entertainment.
I think the reverse is true: Menace was so bad that it's _only_ the
mystique of the original trilogy, the hype and the frothing fan base
that gives it any sort of credibility at all. If it wasn't a Star Wars
movie, or if the original trilogy had never existed, Phantom would have
been laughed out of the metroplexes. It was a poor film standing on the
shoulders of three good ones.
>
>TPM is no less a well-constructed film than Star Wars.
It was abominably constructed: slack, pace-less, verbose, incoherent,
haemorrhaging dramatic tension, inconclusive, etc etc.
> You're now
>seeing it with 22 years worth of movie-reading experience behind you.
>Alas, TPM *isn't* aimed at the same people who saw and enjoyed the
>original movies in the theatre. It's aimed at today's kids. They all
>seem to be enjoying it.
The point being, Star Wars was aimed at _anybody_ - that was the secret
of its success.
>
>>The uninspiring plot that had such a weak central drive...
>
>Funny that, because the plot of TPM is practically identical to Star
>Wars. The *story* is different, but the plot's pretty much the same.
No it isn't. Star Wars had a focus on a single character, a rescue, an
escape, and a save-the-galaxy confrontation. Phantom has a focus
dissipated over several characters, a rescue, a lot of mucking about in
the desert, the introduction of a new plot, a lot of mucking about with
Galactic politics, then three different battles, one of which is a mere
ruse, another a duel fought for no discernible reason except that Darth
Maul is soooo eeeeevil, and all of it for stakes that are frankly pretty
small by comparison.
>
>>the hurried and confusing action set pieces.
>
>What was so confusing about them?
The fact that, unless you read the pre-release articles, there's no way
you can learn anybody's name except Obi-Wan and Anakin. The fact that
the Trade Federation's scheme is never explained, nor Darth Sidious'
machinations. The fact that immense amount of talk, with characters
prosaically explaining the plot to each other, is necessary to get the
whole turgid affair moving.
>
>>The miserable script and stupid, accents that took all sincerity out
>>of the actors.
>
>This is a fantasy world populated by make-believe characters. Accents?
>The accents in the original trilogy are just as "stupid". If you ask
>me, it all adds to the exotic flavour of TPM.
I didn't mind the Queen's accent (kind of sexy, actually), though
McGregor's Guinessian nasal whinge got on my nerves.
Who has a stupid accent in the original movie?
--
Sangraal
-"Gorillas don't read philosophy!"
-"Yes, they do, Otto! They just don't understand it!"
Jamie-Lee Curtis to Kevin Kline, in 'A Fish Called Wanda'
Sangraal
>> watch it again. The same thing happened to me. The second time you'll love
>> it.
Not for me. Saw it once and liked it very much. Went again and
practically fell asleep. Wondering why, I dusted off the old Episode IV
video (not the groovy Special Edition, but the original grainy one) and
watched that. Then it all fell into place. Phantom Menace's
shortcomings are painfully apparent when compared to the original:-
- Star Wars has engaging characters, Phantom Menace doesn't (with
possible exception of Anakin, who's too young to be the hero and too
marginal to the plot to save the film)
- Star Wars has a tight plot which moves briskly from beginning to
end, Phantom Menace has a mess of plotlines kind of thrown together
- Star Wars compels from the outset because the characters are in
danger, suffer, and something big is at stake; in Phantom Menace
there's no urgency, no real danger, nobody is threatened too seriously
and nothing more than a trade dispute and a political coup is at stake
- Star Wars has a script which is, on occasions, witty, poignant
and economical; Phantom Menace was scripted by a schoolboy, as far as I
can tell: verbose, turgid, stilted
- Star Wars is briskly directed, pacey and exciting; Phantom
Menace flounders about, is very dull in the middle and dissipates its
energy in cutting between different events and locations
- Star Wars has a charismatic villain; Phantom Menace squanders
its villain, giving him no lines to say and nothing of any significance
to do before killing him off
- Star Wars has a cast of unknowns all acting their socks off and
obviously enjoying themselves; Phantom Menace is a star vehicle full of
celebrities standing around in want of direction and looking faintly
embarrassed at the silly things the script makes them say
- Star Wars gets its comic relief from the cynical banter of Han
Solo and Chewbacca; Phantom Menace resorts to the slapstick of Jar-Jar
Binks (and, though it is good slapstick, it's still a retrograde step to
abandon a witty script in favour of sight gags and stepping in bantha
dung)
- Star Wars was a self-contained movie; Phantom Menace is
parasitic for its drama and character-interest on the earlier trilogy
and the anticipation of a second film which will actually _do_ something
with the characters and relationships established: it's the cinematic
equivalent of George Lucas clearing his throat
- do I really need to go on?
Sangraal
writes
>I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
>He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
>standards come in.
I had no problem with Jar-Jar. He and the boy Lloyd saved the film.
They were the only ones actually acting.
As for the script: how anyone can say that the script for Phantom was
'not much different' from the bubbly, memorable and often funny banter
in Star Wars, or Lawrence Kasdan's screenplay for the two sequels,
simply beggars belief. Phantom's script was execrable.
Sangraal
<Ma...@jungsite.demon.co.uk> writes
>You're wrong. All of us here can still watch the original trilogy today
>and still enjoy it just as much as some 10 year old kid.
Absolutely. You can try to find merit in Phantom all you like, but the
moment you stick any of the original three into your VCR, the difference
is inescapable: they were good movies, Phantom isn't.
Sangraal
<ma...@headspin.clara.net> writes
>This is the problem though. The people *most* disappointed with the
>film appear to be die-hard SW fanatics. Please answer me this --
>because no other die-hard SW fanatic who slated the movie has yet
>managed to do so -- *what* were you expecting to see in TPM?
Well, I liked Star Wars, but I like good movies first and foremost, and
_I_ was expected a well-constructed, exciting and memorable space
action-fantasy-romance.
It was terribly constructed, dull throughout most of its length and the
only memorable things were the special effects.
I mean, look: can anybody quote a single line from Phantom Menace?
Something on a par with "Watch your mouth kid or you're gonna find
yourself floating home" or "Aren't you a little short for a
stormtrooper?" or "You can't win Darth - if you strike me down I shall
become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!" or "Hokey religions
and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid".
Andie
>
>
> As for the script: how anyone can say that the script for Phantom was
> 'not much different' from the bubbly, memorable and often funny banter
> in Star Wars, or Lawrence Kasdan's screenplay for the two sequels,
> simply beggars belief. Phantom's script was execrable.
I just did. It's ok if you feel differently. To each his own.
Bryan
But. The first time I saw TPM I wondered why the (obviously CGI)
Neimoidians were so badly animated (particularly lip-sync) comared to the
gungans. It was only later I found out that the reason they looked so
(relatively) bad is because they are in fact blokes in suits. Not sure
what this proves, but whatever...
J Perry Fecteau
Wes Hutchings wrote:
>
> ----------
> In article <Eqsm3.2822$V21.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Steve Pang"
> <stev...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
>
> How would you have told the story without them?
ummmm... the same way he did in the classic movies???
> > you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish.
>
> I felt it, must be you. Childish? Really? From a movie? Do tell.
>
> > Poor script.
>
> Like Transformers, it's more than meets the eye. I'll bet there are levels
> to the story you missed. There aren't many movies that do even one level
> well.
he still did it alot better in the original trilogy. i can put up with
the ewoks in jedi because it was still overall very good. episode one
was very bad!
> > The first film was not strictly a kids film was it?
>
> Nope, not strictly for anyone, same here. Some people just got more cynical
bullshit it was a disney wanna be. even disney could have done a better job.
> > I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
> > will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
> > we have done.
>
> Sorry you feel that way. I saw it and
lucas fucked his fans period.
> >
> > Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>
> Lucas fully expects to lose 50% of his audience over the next two films.
> He's going in a different direction which he thinks the fans might not like
> since it is such a departure from the regular films.
i.e. total shit compared to the original.
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet.
http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto
Star Wars Review at:
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/7160/episodeone.html
J Perry Fecteau
Steve Pang wrote:
>
> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script. The Pod
> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
> and with real actors too! What a bonus!
alot of people say that the lightsabre duel was really cool. the moves
i say were cool but it look more like a kungfu flick than star wars.
compare that to the intensity of luke vs. vader in empire strikes back
and it pales. compare it to the tension between luke and the emporer in
return of the jedi and you're left completely flacid. i can't even
remember one line from maul. there's no sense of evil from maul. the
only clue is the red face and the horns... oooooooh... scaaaaarey!
Sauron
swinging a lightsabre like a fly swatter to the sabre style in TPM?!
the point of the TPM looking so much more developed was that Obi-Wan was
an old man, Luke was a boy trained by an old man, and Vader was a
cripple walking around in an iron lung.
--
Qui-Gon Jinn studied him a moment, then smirked, "Nobody likes a
smart-ass, my young padawan."
Andie
> alot of people say that the lightsabre duel was really cool. the moves
> i say were cool but it look more like a kungfu flick than star wars.
> compare that to the intensity of luke vs. vader in empire strikes back
> and it pales. compare it to the tension between luke and the emporer in
> return of the jedi and you're left completely flacid. i can't even
> remember one line from maul. there's no sense of evil from maul. the
> only clue is the red face and the horns... oooooooh... scaaaaarey!
Not sure what intensity you're referring to, but I don't think there was any
chance of Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan turning to the Dark Side. Surely that much was
obvious.
Trooper
09:55:18 +0100, Sangraal <Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <379d2bd5...@news.clara.net>, Mark Stevens
><ma...@headspin.clara.net> writes
>I mean, look: can anybody quote a single line from Phantom Menace?
>Something on a par with "Watch your mouth kid or you're gonna find
>yourself floating home" or "Aren't you a little short for a
>stormtrooper?" or "You can't win Darth - if you strike me down I shall
>become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!" or "Hokey religions
>and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid".
>
You only know those lines 'cause you've watched the films so many times
though!
T.
"There are always two, no more, no less, a master and an apprentice."
or
"You refer to the prophecy of the one who will bring harmony to the
force, and you think it's this boy?"
or
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
--
Illegitmitatum Non Carborundum Est
SJB
<sim...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> writes
>Err, hundreds of Gungans being slaughtered, Qui-gon-Jin being stabbed
>fatally, Darth Maul being sliced in half?
I don't know, call me cynical but everything seemed very "cleanly" done.
We didn't meet most of the Gungans and didn't really get a sense of
their mass death and there wasn't even a surprised 'ouch'! From either
of the people killed by lightsabre.
I thought the final fight was great and full of energy but despite many
kicks and long falls etc. no one seemed to react pain-wise. Perhaps
Jedis and Siths can block out pain? but this fact meant that Qui-Gon's
death was reduced 'emotionally' for me. I found it more disturbing how
long they spent on his burning!
Just my two cents ;)
--
sark...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Studio/5740
TragedyTrousers
>2. There were too many creatures in the underwater sequence but the
>effects were so good that I wasn`t really too bothered.
Wandering a bit off topic here, but in that first panning shot across
the inside of the underwater city, the screen seemed to be juddering
terribly.
This isn't the only time I've noticed this effect at the cinema, and
before anyone blames it on CGI, its happens in live-action scenes too,
where the movement is a medium-slow pace.
I thought film employed motion blur to remove this judder, so can
someone tell me what causes this? (And make them stop doing it!)
--
TragedyTrousers.
6/10
TragedyTrousers
>I will be extremely shocked, not to mention bitterly dissapointed if the
>next two films fail to illustrate this dark time for the Star Wars galaxy.
>"Be patient young Padawan...", and enjoy!!!
Ugh, I've just had an unpleasant daydream.
With the advances made in CGI over the years, the clone wars could be
made up of armies of thousands and thousands of replicas of George
Lucas, with identical check shirts, and 'chin/nochin' beards.
--
TragedyTrousers.
8/10
Simon Grierson
SJB <S...@sarkazm.co.uk> wrote in message news:VSARiJAInIn3Ew$6...@halm.co.uk...
> In article <3SIm3.7893$ts3.2...@nnrp4.clara.net>, Simon Grierson
> <sim...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> writes
> >Err, hundreds of Gungans being slaughtered, Qui-gon-Jin being stabbed
> >fatally, Darth Maul being sliced in half?
>
> I don't know, call me cynical but everything seemed very "cleanly" done.
> We didn't meet most of the Gungans and didn't really get a sense of
> their mass death and there wasn't even a surprised 'ouch'! From either
> of the people killed by lightsabre.
Maybe, maybenot. There wasn't enough time to get a sense of emotion like we
did in, say, Braveheart, where most of the movie was spent building up
towards some kind of conflict.
>
> I thought the final fight was great and full of energy but despite many
> kicks and long falls etc. no one seemed to react pain-wise. Perhaps
> Jedis and Siths can block out pain? but this fact meant that Qui-Gon's
> death was reduced 'emotionally' for me. I found it more disturbing how
> long they spent on his burning!
I dont remember even Luke and Darth Vader showing much pain, apart from
Vader's equipment starting to fail.
Infact, most swordfights I've seen in movies have very little reaction
beyond people falling over.
Simon Grierson
Bryan <b.bu...@removethis.unn.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7nhh2m$a...@dax.unn.ac.uk...
Makes sense - since moving a rubber puppet with motors or with a hand
probably isn't as precicely controllable than real lips being motion
captured, or whatever?
>
Simon Grierson
Justin <ja...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:379C76...@student.canterbury.ac.nz...
> > I think the point is, that mostly nobody could tell the difference
between
> > CGI and real world stuff. For example, the palace was not CGI but was
infact
> > a palace in Italy.
>
> emergence of a sort of sensoral skepticism, eg people going into a
> theatre now with the assumption that anything they see that does not
> seem real, likely, or possible, is CG.
Quite. Looking in most magazines these days, models seem to have perfect
skin. Little do people know that Photshop experts are busily removing
blemishes, adding blue to the eyes and adding white to the teeth.....
Interesting times indeed.
Infact, I once read an article interviewing the visual effects team on the
X-files - they were really proud of the fact that now they have computers,
they can digitally remove things that would have needed to have a reshoot -
thus saving time and film.
For exmaple, if Mulder is looking the wrong way, they just paint out his
eyes and repaint them looking in the right way.
Clever stuff, sometimes people just don't know when it's being done.
>
> Obviously, for a long time now, "the camera never lies" has been so
> false that "the camera virtually never tells the truth" would be more
> accurate, especially in anything to do with advertising. I get the
> impression that people are catching on to this, but I suspect there are
> still strongholds of trust in video footage (unless it's video footage
> from Milosevic or Hussien or other source designated (by television) to
> be demonic liars :-)
The camera never lies is an interesting saying. Since for so long there have
been photographic tricks that can fool most casual observers.
It's amazing what a home PC and a digital videocamera can do though for a
reasonable cost!
>
> These are interesting times...
Simon Grierson
>
>
> Steve Pang wrote:
>
> > Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the
action -
> > you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script. The
Pod
> > Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel -
brilliant,
> > and with real actors too! What a bonus!
>
> CG(backgrounds). Seems you rather need to rethink your statement.
> And "too much CG" is a worthless comment, because CG is great, sure there
are
> some flaws still here and there, but much better then conventional
effects.
Actually, it wasn't 100% CG - a large part was. THey had a lifesized
podracer for closeup shots, and the scene with the children jumping up and
down had Warwick Davis (not Kenny baker as I said previously) dressed up as
the little blue crature that looked like Greedo).
> >
> >
> > The first film was not strictly a kids film was it? It was for
teenagers -
> > the emerging 'nerd' culture of which Lucas himself was part. Remember,
Star
> > Wars includes a graphic scene of an alien getting his arm chopped off,
burnt
> > corpses of Luke's guardians and of Jawas (!), and big close-ups of a
droid
> > designed to torture human beings. It had more convincing emotional
> > relationships too (Luke vs. Han, Han & Chewy, Luke and Ben etc. etc.)
>
> Maul getting cut in half.
> A ton of droids dying(sure, they're droid, but you mentioned one).
> Etc...
The political elements, while fairly tame by comparison to most REAL
political movies, were fairly adult (not that most kids would even notice
them being there).
>
> >
> >
> > I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
> > will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults,
as
> > we have done.
>
> Yeah, sure :P
>
> >
> >
> > Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>
Simon Grierson
J Perry Fecteau <perf...@mail2.nai.net> wrote in message
news:379C5E08...@mail2.nai.net...
>
>
> Steve Pang wrote:
> >
> > Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the
action -
> > you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script. The
Pod
> > Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel -
brilliant,
> > and with real actors too! What a bonus!
>
> i say were cool but it look more like a kungfu flick than star wars.
> compare that to the intensity of luke vs. vader in empire strikes back
> and it pales. compare it to the tension between luke and the emporer in
> return of the jedi and you're left completely flacid. i can't even
> remember one line from maul. there's no sense of evil from maul. the
> only clue is the red face and the horns... oooooooh... scaaaaarey!
Your completely missing the point about him though. Maul is not ment to be a
Vader type charactor . Sure, he's the emperor's apprentice - but consider
that the whole point is, Anakin/Vader are a unique being - conceived of the
force - and as such, he becomes the most evil entity the galaxy has ever
seen next to the Emperor. To have another charactor that was basically Vader
in a different costume would not be good at all. It would remove some of the
tradgedy that is Anakins fall to the Dark Side.
Remember the hope that Obiwahan and Qui-Gon have for Anakins abilites - and
see what happened to him in the original trilogy.
No, Maul is meant to be nothing more than a Henchman. Most of Vader's
charisma was his power and presence - his ability to command respect from
his subordinates, the fact he helped crush the Republic.
Maul is a freshman - a newly trained Sith lord - nothig more. He was not
good at his job, so he was killed.
Look to Darth Sideous for the real evilness. Nobody knows who he is. Except
the astute viewer of the full series so far.....
Simon
Simon Grierson
>
>
> Wes Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > ----------
> > In article <Eqsm3.2822$V21.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Steve Pang"
> >
> > >
> > > Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the
action -
> >
>
> ummmm... the same way he did in the classic movies???
Uhhhhmmmmm, well, perhaps, but it would have been far less of a scale than
he managed here. We would have seen it, but it would have been smaller.
Besides, most people here cant tell the difference between the CGI sequences
and real action footage, since a lot of examples of CGI badness that have
been provided to add evidence, turn out to be action footage of real actors
or models!
>
> > > you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish.
> >
> > I felt it, must be you. Childish? Really? From a movie? Do tell.
> >
> > > Poor script.
> >
> > Like Transformers, it's more than meets the eye. I'll bet there are
levels
> > to the story you missed. There aren't many movies that do even one level
> > well.
>
>
> he still did it alot better in the original trilogy. i can put up with
> the ewoks in jedi because it was still overall very good. episode one
> was very bad!
You may feel this, but an awul lot of people dont feel the same way as you.
Enogh to seell approx $600 million worth of tickets.
Also remember in the first trilogy, there was just one story being told -
and it was a build up. It had a much stronger self contained story, since he
had no idea that he'd be making two sequels - so he had to make it stand
alone.
Only once we'd seen the two other movies did we realise just how
far-reaching the plot was. We had no idea then that Luke was Vader's son, or
that Lea was his sister, and tha the Emperor was a dark-lord of the Sith.
Most of the plot was revealed later on, so we had no idea that there was
another story being told other than these band of rebels blew up a big
spacestation and stopped the rebels from being caught.
Episode one on the other hand, had a weaker standalone story (in my opinion,
not MUCh weeker, but anyway) - but the arc was much much stronge, since
Lucas knew from the start that he'd have the chance to do all three without
interruption. So infact, most of the plot is long-running this time round.
You have to look properly to understand what's going on.. The casual viwer
without much bother for the rest of the sieries might not see this, but if
you know or care about the StarWars storyline, it will reveal itself.
>
> > > The first film was not strictly a kids film was it?
> >
> > Nope, not strictly for anyone, same here. Some people just got more
cynical
>
> bullshit it was a disney wanna be. even disney could have done a better
job.
>
> > > I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie
but
> > > will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as
adults, as
> > > we have done.
> >
> > Sorry you feel that way. I saw it and
>
> lucas fucked his fans period.
No he didn't, period.
>
> > >
> > > Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
> >
> > Lucas fully expects to lose 50% of his audience over the next two films.
> > He's going in a different direction which he thinks the fans might not
like
> > since it is such a departure from the regular films.
>
> i.e. total shit compared to the original.
IE. your opinion and not the majoritie's opinion.
Simon Grierson
Sangraal <Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> As for the script: how anyone can say that the script for Phantom was
> 'not much different' from the bubbly, memorable and often funny banter
> in Star Wars, or Lawrence Kasdan's screenplay for the two sequels,
> simply beggars belief. Phantom's script was execrable.
I disagree. Just because it didn't replicate the relationships in ANH does
not automatically make it a poor script. Remember we have two professional
soldiers protecting a queen. They have happened upon a young boy who appears
to be the future of the Jedi - but they havne't been together long enough to
really "Care" about each other.
Most of the comedic banter in ANH was provided by the charactor of Han Solo.
To xerox that charactor and call him Qui-Gon or somthing like that would be
just insane, and I could see the articles criticising the movie as being a
retread of ANH.
Simon Grierson
Tommy Maguire <tommy....@freecall-uk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:379ba...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net...> > You ever seen this Japenese(chinese)film that Lucas partly based Star
Wars
> off
> > of?
> > I forget the name, and the person that made it died not too long
> ago...something
> > Kurosawa I believe.
> > Someone can point it out to you :)
> > But apparently the parrallels between *that* and Star Wars are quite a
bit
> more
> > then anything in TPM to anything else.
>
> I didn't mean the story, I meant the visuals. The visuals of ANH at that
> time were nothing that had been seen before. At that time, they were
truly
> captivating. Where as the visuals in TPM, CGI, are now commonplace in
most
> movies. And that is why it will not be cherished by young viewers as much
> now as the original was back in '77.
I agree. There's no way any movie recently produced will captivate a
generation the same was as Star Wars did. Name one other movie that is
cherished like Star Wars?
Maybe ET, but did that generate an entire spin-off industry that is still in
existence?
There is no other movie that will have the kind of anticipation that TPM
had, nor is there going to be for a very very long time. The sequels to TPM
are now just incientals, filling in the gaps between TPM and ANH. (harsh as
that sounds) and will not enjoy the success of TPM.
What it will be remembered as, is as part of one of the best movie series
ever produced, and as a part of a real moviemaking classic.
Simon
>
> Incidentley, try Joseph Campbell's The Heroes Journey for comparisons to
the
> Lucas vision of Star Wars.
>
>
>
Matt Bowman
<perf...@mail2.nai.net> writes
>
>
>Steve Pang wrote:
>>
>> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
>> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
>> and with real actors too! What a bonus!
>
>alot of people say that the lightsabre duel was really cool. the moves
>i say were cool but it look more like a kungfu flick than star wars.
>compare that to the intensity of luke vs. vader in empire strikes back
>and it pales. compare it to the tension between luke and the emporer in
>return of the jedi and you're left completely flacid. i can't even
>remember one line from maul. there's no sense of evil from maul. the
>only clue is the red face and the horns... oooooooh... scaaaaarey!
>
very intense and exciting it was the only time apart from the pod race
that the movies came to life and actually became quite involving. The
final battle was over far to quickly though and I found the pay off very
unsatisfying.
Also it didn't seem all that honourable - 2 Jedi's vs one Sith who was
strong enough to fend them both off and - get this - it was only when
Obi Wan turned to the dark side (i.e. he embraced his anger) that he was
able to beat Maul.
You have to admit that Mauls light sabre was VERY cool though.
Matt Bowman
"Due to unexpected delays due to superstition and ignorance the end of the
world has now been delayed until the next millenium.
We thank you for you patience."
Matt Bowman
>
<snip> fantastic list of everything that's wrong with TPM
>- Star Wars was a self-contained movie; Phantom Menace is
>parasitic for its drama and character-interest on the earlier trilogy
>and the anticipation of a second film which will actually _do_ something
>with the characters and relationships established: it's the cinematic
>equivalent of George Lucas clearing his throat
>
>- do I really need to go on?
>
You have to admit that it was nice to see Terrance Stamp in a film again
though.
What did you like about the movie the first time around? The only time
that has happened to me was when ID4 came out - first time around I was
amazed by the FX but it just fell apart on the second viewing. That was
when CGI was a bit newer though - surely none of us were THAT amazed by
the CGI - there was nothing particularly new like in the Matrix.
Matt Bowman
Buy more Monkey Biscuits at www.monkeybiscuits.com
Matt Bowman
>>The accents in the original trilogy are just as "stupid". If you ask
>>me, it all adds to the exotic flavour of TPM.
>
>I didn't mind the Queen's accent (kind of sexy, actually), though
>McGregor's Guinessian nasal whinge got on my nerves.
>
>Who has a stupid accent in the original movie?
>
>
Matt Bowman
>Something on a par with "Watch your mouth kid or you're gonna find
>yourself floating home" or "Aren't you a little short for a
>stormtrooper?" or "You can't win Darth - if you strike me down I shall
>become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!" or "Hokey religions
>and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid".
>
Someone says "search your feelings" at one point, which I found quite
funny.
Matt Bowman
Peter Cushing!!!
If they'd taken the whole movie out and just had one scene with Peter
Cushing having a chat with Darth Sididious and Darth Maul then the movie
would have been al lot better - It's not like it would have been that
much different either - there was so much exposition by the other, less
interesting characters. It would also have set up the other movies just
like TPM did if they'd talked about their plans a bit.
Sangraal
e...@pleasesendmelotsofspam.yahoo.com> writes
>In article <ZrkxLIA2...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, on Mon, 26 Jul 1999
>09:55:18 +0100, Sangraal <Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <379d2bd5...@news.clara.net>, Mark Stevens
>><ma...@headspin.clara.net> writes
>
>>Something on a par with "Watch your mouth kid or you're gonna find
>>yourself floating home" or "Aren't you a little short for a
>>stormtrooper?" or "You can't win Darth - if you strike me down I shall
>>become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!" or "Hokey religions
>>and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid".
>>
>
>though!
Not very many times (once when it was released, maybe two/three times on
video over the last 7 or 8 years). They just stuck in my head.
>
>"There are always two, no more, no less, a master and an apprentice."
>or
>"You refer to the prophecy of the one who will bring harmony to the
>force, and you think it's this boy?"
>or
>"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
Yeah, but those quotes aren't any _good_ are they? They're not pithy,
or funny, or poignant, or deep, or anything. You won't be chanting them
over a beer with your mates or using them as a witty riposte in some
usenet discussion (and Han Solo's "hokey religions and ancient weapons
are no match for a good blaster by your side" quote has served me
several times, as has Kenobi's "if you strike me down I shall become
more powerful than you can possibly imagine"). The only one of those 3
you cite with any sort of zip is Yoda's, but presented out of context,
it's just another generic Yoda quote, isn't it? Could you be sure it
wasn't from Empire Strikes Back? Or Return of the Jedi? I couldn't.
TragedyTrousers
>I thought the final fight was great and full of energy but despite many
>kicks and long falls etc. no one seemed to react pain-wise. Perhaps
>Jedis and Siths can block out pain? but this fact meant that Qui-Gon's
>death was reduced 'emotionally' for me. I found it more disturbing how
>long they spent on his burning!
Glad I'm not the only one to find that scene very peculiar.
I think being forced to watch that particular ceremony is probably what
started young Anakin on the path to the dark side!
I mean, imagine the *smell*, just for starters...
#blech#
--
TragedyTrousers.
7/10
TragedyTrousers
>Not sure what intensity you're referring to, but I don't think there was any
>chance of Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan turning to the Dark Side. Surely that much was
>obvious.
I liked the way the fight ends when Obi-Wan appears to lose his cool (he
certainly looks rather annoyed ;), as though his hate had made him
weaker.
--
TragedyTrousers.
4/10
...and Gerthein Boersma
>If they'd taken the whole movie out and just had one scene with Peter
>Cushing having a chat with Darth Sididious and Darth Maul then the movie
>would have been al lot better - It's not like it would have been that
>much different either - there was so much exposition by the other, less
>interesting characters. It would also have set up the other movies just
>like TPM did if they'd talked about their plans a bit.
Look, the man is dead. There's only so much this CGI stuff can do.
- Gerthein (-o-)
-----------------------------
g e r t h e i n @ w x s . n l
-----------------------------
Capt. Yeager
Simon Grierson <sim...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uk1n3.4248$V21.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
I think that they may have had CGI lips superimposed over the suits. The
CGI lips ar much easier to manipulate than those of a suit.
FrMerrin
>
>
>Steve Pang wrote:
>>
>> Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action -
>> you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script. The Pod
>> Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
>> and with real actors too! What a bonus!
>
>alot of people say that the lightsabre duel was really cool.
Well it _would_ have been very good. However, George decided to cut away from it in the
middle, and by the time we came back, I had stopped caring.
Mike
"You pilots are such men !"
"Hey honey, they don't call this the cockpit for nothing"
(Airport 80 The Concorde)
FrMerrin
>In article <W7dyfGAT...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Sangraal
>>
><snip> fantastic list of everything that's wrong with TPM
>>- Star Wars was a self-contained movie; Phantom Menace is
>>parasitic for its drama and character-interest on the earlier trilogy
>>and the anticipation of a second film which will actually _do_ something
>>with the characters and relationships established: it's the cinematic
>>equivalent of George Lucas clearing his throat
>>
>>- do I really need to go on?
>>
>Wow, great description.
>
>You have to admit that it was nice to see Terrance Stamp in a film again
>though.
He hardly had anything to do, though.
I enjoyed seeing Ian McDiarmid, presumably getting lots of funds for his theatre, but he
wasn't given much to do of any interest in either of his guises.
There isn't _anything_ in TPM to match the highspots of EMPIRE, and I'm talking
emotionally rather than technically. The wonderfully dramatic and, at the same time, funny
and touching moment when Han Solo's only response to Leia's "I Love You" is "I Know",
shows the sort of deftness of touch that is lacking in the new film.
FrMerrin
>
>Sangraal <Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> As for the script: how anyone can say that the script for Phantom was
>> 'not much different' from the bubbly, memorable and often funny banter
>> in Star Wars, or Lawrence Kasdan's screenplay for the two sequels,
>> simply beggars belief. Phantom's script was execrable.
>
>I disagree. Just because it didn't replicate the relationships in ANH does
>not automatically make it a poor script.
No. It's the appalling dialogue and bad story construction that make it a bad script.
Is someone now going to come up with the "It'll all be explained in the next two
installments" line ? One of the best excuses for bad writing I've ever heard, and it will
be my excuse next time someone slags off one of my favourite films.
Simon Grierson
Matt Bowman <Ma...@jungsite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vvQFCQAz...@jungsite.demon.co.uk...
> I've just realised what TPM needed to make it great.
>
> Peter Cushing!!!
>
> Cushing having a chat with Darth Sididious and Darth Maul then the movie
> would have been al lot better - It's not like it would have been that
> much different either - there was so much exposition by the other, less
> interesting characters. It would also have set up the other movies just
> like TPM did if they'd talked about their plans a bit.
One problem. He's dead.
Simon Grierson
FrMerrin <fr.m...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:379cc6e0...@news.virgin.net...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:35:14 GMT, "Simon Grierson"
<sim...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sangraal <Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> >> As for the script: how anyone can say that the script for Phantom was
> >> 'not much different' from the bubbly, memorable and often funny banter
> >> in Star Wars, or Lawrence Kasdan's screenplay for the two sequels,
> >> simply beggars belief. Phantom's script was execrable.
> >
> >I disagree. Just because it didn't replicate the relationships in ANH
does
> >not automatically make it a poor script.
>
> No. It's the appalling dialogue and bad story construction that make it a
bad script.
As I have said before, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I found no
major faults in the storytelling or script myself.
I'd be interested to see what you consider evidence to these traits however.
> Is someone now going to come up with the "It'll all be explained in the
next two
> installments" line ? One of the best excuses for bad writing I've ever
heard, and it will
> be my excuse next time someone slags off one of my favourite films.
It's interesting you dismiss this notion too, why are you so intent on
dismissing any other viewpoint?
Simon Grierson
TragedyTrousers <tragedy....@SPAMYENOTbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:37adc144...@news.btinternet.com...
Am I the only one who noticed the fact that Palpatine was there, and just as
it was being speculated upon the fact that there where two lords of the
Sith, a Master and an apprenitce- the camera swung to Palpatine?
Simon
>
> #blech#
>
> --
> TragedyTrousers.
> 7/10
Simon Grierson
Capt. Yeager <pad...@necaremove.com> wrote in message
news:7nigkl$obm$1...@taurus.neca.com...
Then why didn't they do the same for Yoda? Makes more sense that they where
animatronics, IMHO.
>
>
Simon Grierson
TragedyTrousers <tragedy....@SPAMYENOTbtinternet.com> wrote in message
Wonder if this will be used against him in the future?
>
>
> --
> TragedyTrousers.
> 4/10
Mark Stevens
<Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, I liked Star Wars, but I like good movies first and foremost, and
>_I_ was expected a well-constructed, exciting and memorable space
>action-fantasy-romance.
>It was terribly constructed, dull throughout most of its length and the
>only memorable things were the special effects.
Heh! This is what I like about the criticism for TPM, because
*exactly* the same negative criticisms can be drawn against ANH, ESB
and ROTJ.
Please explain this "terrible construction" anyway. A few people like
to throw around phrases such as this for the sake of argument, but
seem to run away when asked to justify them. At least I've attempted
to justify why I think TPM is a *decent* movie.
>I mean, look: can anybody quote a single line from Phantom Menace?
Blimey, give TPM a chance. We've had 22 years to learn the ANH script
off by heart.
>Something on a par with "Watch your mouth kid or you're gonna find
>yourself floating home" or "Aren't you a little short for a
>stormtrooper?"
Ah yes, George Lucas's literary genius is definitely at work there. If
you think those particular lines are a good argument in favour of
TPM's poor script, then you're obviously deluded.
>or "You can't win Darth - if you strike me down I shall
>become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!" or "Hokey religions
>and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid".
Well, many die-hard fans who are devoted to their "hokey religion" of
Star Wars were obviously expecting the Second Coming when they sat
down in the movie theatre. The Phantom Menace is just a good blaster.
--
Mark Stevens
Mark Stevens
<Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Absolutely. You can try to find merit in Phantom all you like, but the
>moment you stick any of the original three into your VCR, the difference
>is inescapable: they were good movies, Phantom isn't.
Oh yes, there's some mighty fine logic at work there. Your argument
basically comes down to this: "TPM is shit because ANH, ESB and ROTJ
are good." Congratulations, professor -- you've discovered the secret
formula!
I don't have to try and find merit in TPM. I can see it. I'm not
suggesting that TPM should be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm *very*
surprised by some so-called Star Wars fans who level criticisms at TPM
that can just as equally be levelled at the original trilogy -- only
to go stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and shout,
"La-la-la!" in a very loud voice when someone tries to point this out.
I don't really want to repeat myself. Go back and read my previous
posts in this thread, where I laid out numerous reasons why Star Wars
is an important movie and why The Phantom Menace could never hope to
be considered as important. The die-hard anoraks *wanted* TPM to be as
important as ANH, but in doing so they've completely missed the point
of the whole Star Wars phenomenon.
The more level-headed Star Wars fans and casual cinema-goers seem to
love TPM. The only people I know who hate it with a passion are
pedantic film critics and those fans for whom Star Wars has
transcended beyond being merely "a damn good movie" into a religious
experience.
I've seen TPM twice now, with various people, ranging from keen Star
Wars fans who saw the original in a theatre 22 years ago, to those who
weren't even born when ROTJ came out and just like to be entertained
when they watch a movie. Everyone I saw it with enjoyed it to various
extents. We recognise its strengths and weaknesses. TPM isn't a
cinematic masterpiece, but nor is it a piece of shit.
Still, I personally find it quite amusing that half the people who
slag off TPM seem to think The Matrix is the best movie ever made. Now
*that's* comedy. (Personally, I thought The Matrix was dull and
tedious, but then given that I like TPM, I'm obviously retarded, so my
opinion is flawed from the start.)
Mark Stevens
<Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>For me, I was 10. But, no, that has no bearing. Star Wars stands re-
>watching because it has merits as a well-constructed, sharply scripted
>and enjoyably acted space fantasy adventure... Phantom Menace, on the
>other hand....
I love you guys! For every bad line of dialogue and poorly constructed
bit of plot you can name in The Phantom Menace, I'll name you one from
Star Wars in return.
Every Star Wars film has its strengths and weaknesses. For some
reason, the die-hard fanatics seem to be blind to ANH's weaknesses and
TPM's strengths. I can't quite see why.
>Not so. My dislike was due to its shoddy construction as a movie.
That's the second or third time you've mentioned TPM's poor
construction. I'm still waiting for an example.
>I'm perfectly in touch with my inner child, thank you.
Careful -- the FBI have search engines that detect the words "touch"
and "child" in close proximity to each other.
>>Anyone who went into TPM with those sort of expectations were simply
>>missing the point.
>As, it seems, was anyone going in expecting two hours of quality film
>entertainment.
Give me five examples of "quality film entertainment" you've
experienced at the cinema this year. I'm not trying to catch you out
or anything -- I just want to know where you're coming from.
All I expected to see was 135 minutes of juvenile sci-fi/fantasy
action set in the Star Wars universe. That's what I got and I wasn't
disappointed. You, it would seem, were expecting to find something to
rival Citizen Kane, Battleship Potemkin, 2001: A Space Oddysey, Blade
Runner and Schindler's List.
>I think the reverse is true: Menace was so bad...
Here you are again, with your vague and meaningless descriptions. I'm
not trying to convert you to the Dark Side and force you to enjoy TPM.
I just expect a *teensy* bit of justification for all this negativity.
>If it wasn't a Star Wars movie, or if the original trilogy had never
>existed, Phantom would have been laughed out of the metroplexes.
Bzzzt! Hypothetical situations are all very well if they're at least
plausible. TPM wouldn't have existed without the original trilogy, so
that renders this particular hypothesis void.
>It was a poor film standing on the shoulders of three good ones.
I bet you buy the video and *then* continue to whine that it's bad.
>It was abominably constructed: slack, pace-less, verbose, incoherent,
>haemorrhaging dramatic tension, inconclusive, etc etc.
Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. I can recognise TPM's flaws. I can also
recognise ANH's flaws. I can give numerous examples of each movie's
pros and cons if need be (and have done previously). If I can make
some effort to explain *precisely* why I think TPM is a good movie,
why can't you do the same to justify your slagging off?
I'm quite prepared to have a decent discussion about TPM's strengths
and weaknesses, but it looks like I'm going to have to wait a good few
months for the knee-jerk contingent to simmer down.
If you want it in a nut-shell:
1) ANH has good bits.
2) TPM has good bits.
3) ANH has bad bits.
4) TPM has bad bits.
5) TPM's good bits are as good as ANH's good bits.
6) ANH's bad bits are as bad as TPM's bad bits.
I can justify all six of those statements. I suspect you refuse to
accept that 2, 3, 5 and 6 are in any way accurate. Am I right? If so,
look at what you're left with and then try to tell me you're being
objective about this whole discussion.
>The point being, Star Wars was aimed at _anybody_ - that was the secret
>of its success.
Really? That's all? Think harder.
>>Funny that, because the plot of TPM is practically identical to Star
>>Wars. The *story* is different, but the plot's pretty much the same.
>No it isn't.
What, no -- the plot isn't the same, or no -- the story's the same?
>Star Wars had a focus on a single character, a rescue, an escape, and a
>save-the-galaxy confrontation. Phantom has a focus dissipated over
>several characters, a rescue, a lot of mucking about in the desert,
>the introduction of a new plot, a lot of mucking about with
>Galactic politics, then three different battles, one of which is a mere
>ruse, another a duel fought for no discernible reason except that Darth
>Maul is soooo eeeeevil, and all of it for stakes that are frankly pretty
>small by comparison.
Yep, that's what I said. The story is different. The plot's still the
same though.
Plot: "With the help of a young apprentice, a wise man embarks upon a
quest to rescue a princess who is being help captive by evil powers
who wish to use her for their political advantage. During the rescue
attempt, the wise man is killed by servants of the evil power. The
young apprentice is forced to mature, put his past behind him and find
an inner strength before the battle can be won."
The story is where you get jiggy with the specifics of the plot and
colour it with variations.
>>What was so confusing about them?
>The fact that, unless you read the pre-release articles, there's no way
>you can learn anybody's name except Obi-Wan and Anakin.
I saw the movie with a few people who a) didn't pretty much care for
Star Wars either way, and b) hadn't read any pre-releases or even seen
the trailer. They could name characters the next day.
>The fact that the Trade Federation's scheme is never explained, nor
>Darth Sidious' machinations.
What, you mean precisely *why* they were blockading Naboo?
Sidious/Palpatine wanted to engineer a political crisis that would
elevate him to a higher position within the senate. That point was
made clear numerous times.
Admittedly, it is a lot clearer for people who've seen the original
trilogy and know that Palpatine eventually becomes the Emperor. Not
much help if you haven't seen a Star Wars movie before though --
perhaps George Lucas was simply being too foolish in assuming that
some people might have actually seen the previous movies.
But then, my non-SW fan pals managed to pick this up, so I'd be very
surprised if a keen (or even casual) SW fan didn't.
>The fact that immense amount of talk, with characters prosaically
>explaining the plot to each other, is necessary to get the
>whole turgid affair moving.
Immense? The longest sequence of political exposition was probably the
vote for no confidence scene. Other than that, there were only a
handful of such scenes throughout the movie and they barely lasted
more than a minute each. The action-to-exposition ratio of TPM and ANH
are about the same.
Mark Stevens
<Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>- Star Wars has engaging characters, Phantom Menace doesn't (with
>possible exception of Anakin, who's too young to be the hero and too
>marginal to the plot to save the film)
Well, you've had 22 years to get used to the characters in Star Wars.
They're as comfortable as a pair of slippers. TPM's only been out five
minutes! Even so, I found Qui-Gon, Amidala, Anakin and Darth Maul to
be engaging.
>- Star Wars has a tight plot which moves briskly from beginning to
>end, Phantom Menace has a mess of plotlines kind of thrown together
Audiences are a *teensy* bit more sophisticated these days and can
generally handle more than two simultaneous plot threads. Did Pulp
Fiction or Short Cuts give you a headache?
>- Star Wars compels from the outset because the characters are in
>danger, suffer, and something big is at stake; in Phantom Menace
>there's no urgency, no real danger, nobody is threatened too seriously
>and nothing more than a trade dispute and a political coup is at stake
True. On it's own, TPM isn't as dynamic as ANH in dramatic terms. But
I think once we've seen the subsequent two movies, the slightly more
passive drama in TPM will take on a whole new twist. Given what's
going to happen in episode three, I think Lucas is maintaining some
balance in advance.
>- Star Wars has a script which is, on occasions, witty, poignant
>and economical; Phantom Menace was scripted by a schoolboy, as far as I
>can tell: verbose, turgid, stilted
Yes, Star Wars is occasionally witty, poignant and economical. But so
is TPM. And yes, TPM can occasionally be verbose and a little bit
stilted (I draw the line at turgid!), but so's Star Wars in places. As
I've said elsewhere, the criticisms (positive and negative) that are
being levelled at TPM are just as valid for ANH, ESB and ROTJ.
>- Star Wars is briskly directed, pacey and exciting; Phantom
>Menace flounders about, is very dull in the middle and dissipates its
>energy in cutting between different events and locations
I thought the balance was nicely maintained. The middle section was
perhaps a bit too talky, although the alternative was just to have
more action and thus run the risk of having TPM be nothing more than a
glamorous action movie.
>- Star Wars has a charismatic villain; Phantom Menace squanders
>its villain, giving him no lines to say and nothing of any significance
>to do before killing him off
By the end of episode three, I think most people will come to
recognise the wisdom of this decision. The focus of the trilogy should
always be Anakin Skywalker. Having Darth Maul hang around for much
longer, just for the sake of "being cool", will simply detract from
the drama of Anakin's fall and the rise of Darth Vader. The last shot
at Qui-Gon's funeral is the most telling. It's basically saying,
"Well, if you thought Darth Maul was evil, wait until you see what
this cute little kid gets up to."
I can't understand why everyone wants this trilogy to be the Darth
Maul Show. Probably the same people who wanted the original trilogy to
be the Boba Fett Show.
>- Star Wars has a cast of unknowns all acting their socks off and
>obviously enjoying themselves; Phantom Menace is a star vehicle full of
>celebrities standing around in want of direction and looking faintly
>embarrassed at the silly things the script makes them say
Hah! You'd think that'd be the case, but I think you're saying that
more for effect (or because that's what you suspected they'd do) than
anything else. They look pretty comfortable to me -- apart from Ewan,
who seems to be trying too hard to be nonchalant at times.
Yes, TPM's cast is full of major stars, although the irony is that a
lot of people in the American newsgroups had never heard of Ewan
McGregor -- or even Natalie Portman -- before the cast was announced.
It was quite amusing, watching them all run off to watch
Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, Leon and Beautiful Girls once they were
confirmed and then pretending they knew who they were all along.
>- Star Wars gets its comic relief from the cynical banter of Han
>Solo and Chewbacca; Phantom Menace resorts to the slapstick of Jar-Jar
>Binks (and, though it is good slapstick, it's still a retrograde step to
>abandon a witty script in favour of sight gags and stepping in bantha
>dung)
Agreed. TPM's humour was slightly misplaced (or overloaded in one
particular place). I suspect episode 2 will make up for this once the
Anakin/Amidala relationship takes off.
>- Star Wars was a self-contained movie; Phantom Menace is
>parasitic for its drama and character-interest on the earlier trilogy
>and the anticipation of a second film which will actually _do_ something
>with the characters and relationships established: it's the cinematic
>equivalent of George Lucas clearing his throat
Well, I dare say that most of the people going into TPM knew this
would be the case. Star Wars is self-contained because Lucas had no
idea he'd ever get the chance to continue the story. The script would
have been very different had he known otherwise. Lucas wrote TPM
knowing full well there'd definitely be another two movies.
Alby Reid
writes:
>But. The first time I saw TPM I wondered why the (obviously CGI)
>Neimoidians were so badly animated (particularly lip-sync) comared to the
>gungans. It was only later I found out that the reason they looked so
>(relatively) bad is because they are in fact blokes in suits. Not sure
>what this proves, but whatever...
The thing I loved was the production photographs of scenes involving Jar Jar
Binks. 'Cause Jar Jar couldn't be there when they were filming for obvious
reasons - he was already tied up doing promotion for another one of his movies
- they had a guy standing in. Because this guy was simulating Jar Jar he had to
be taller and was wearing a strange sort of "Jar Jar Hat" which had Jar Jar's
eyes on. The other part of the hat was a visor that went over his eyes. I spent
ages trying to work out why it was there until it suddenly dawned on me.
The visor was there to stop Liam and Ewan from making eye contact with the man
and forcing them to look at Jar Jar's eye level so that when they put him in
later it looked correct!
Alby "Yep, pretty boring" Reid
--
Alby Reid
Alby...@bigfoot.com
"I was marvellous, and it was a bloody good laugh" - Macleane (Johnny Lee
Miller), "Plunkett and Macleane"
Mark Stevens
tragedy....@SPAMYENOTbtinternet.com (TragedyTrousers) wrote:
>Wandering a bit off topic here, but in that first panning shot across
>the inside of the underwater city, the screen seemed to be juddering
>terribly.
>This isn't the only time I've noticed this effect at the cinema, and
>before anyone blames it on CGI, its happens in live-action scenes too,
>where the movement is a medium-slow pace.
Yep, a natural side effect of a fast panning shot being shown on a
large screen at 25fps. The quicker the panning shot, the greater the
difference between one frame and the next. The bigger the screen is,
the more obvious this difference is going to be. Put all the frames
together at you get this juddering/blurry effect.
Mark Stevens
<Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>You only know those lines 'cause you've watched the films so many times
>>though!
>Not very many times (once when it was released, maybe two/three times on
>video over the last 7 or 8 years). They just stuck in my head.
So, between 15-25 times then? You're right, that's not many!
>Yeah, but those quotes aren't any _good_ are they? They're not pithy,
>or funny, or poignant, or deep, or anything. You won't be chanting them
>over a beer with your mates or using them as a witty riposte in some
>usenet discussion (and Han Solo's "hokey religions and ancient weapons
>are no match for a good blaster by your side" quote has served me
>several times, as has Kenobi's "if you strike me down I shall become
>more powerful than you can possibly imagine").
I can't quite say I've had a conversation during which there's been an
opportunity to shoe-horn one of those in. You've obviously been in far
too many fights with crazed bikers or kids armed to the teeth with
flick-knives. And if those are the sort of things you *do* work into a
conversation, it's no surprise people want to give you a good kicking!
Mark Stevens
<Ma...@jungsite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What did you like about the movie the first time around? The only time
>that has happened to me was when ID4 came out - first time around I was
>amazed by the FX but it just fell apart on the second viewing. That was
>when CGI was a bit newer though - surely none of us were THAT amazed by
>the CGI - there was nothing particularly new like in the Matrix.
The effects in The Matrix were new? The same techniques have been used
to death in commercials and pop videos for at least three years. Nice
to see The Matrix giving that dead horse one last flog.
Here, did you actually like The Matrix? I only ask, because nearly all
of the anti-TPM brigade, who slagged the movie off for its poor
script, poor acting, poor pacing, uncharismatic characters, forced wit
and dull special effects, all seem to love The Matrix -- which is
funny on so many levels.
Mark Stevens
<sim...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
>As I have said before, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I found no
>major faults in the storytelling or script myself.
Me neither. It told a simple story in a clean, efficient manner. It
would appear that many of the "shit script" merchants had problems
remembering names or discerning intentions, motivations and reasons
why things happened. Given that I've seen TPM with quite a few non-SW
fans who understood everything perfectly, I find it difficult to
believe they had some trouble in this area.
Some people also want new characters in TPM to be as cosy and familiar
after one screening of the movie as the old characters in ANH did
after fifty screenings of the movie. Can't work that one out either. I
think a lot of the anti-TPM brigade were looking for over-familiarity
in the movie. Whilst TPM was very recognisably Star Wars, Lucas also
added a few extra shades of colour to the universe. These were perhaps
a bit too alien for the die-hard fanatics -- hence they don't like it.
Hence they think the script's shit.
>> Is someone now going to come up with the "It'll all be explained in the
>> next two installments" line ? One of the best excuses for bad writing
>> I've ever heard, and it will be my excuse next time someone slags off
>> one of my favourite films.
>It's interesting you dismiss this notion too, why are you so intent on
>dismissing any other viewpoint?
Indeed. ANH had a certain amount of closure because Lucas thought it
was 99% likely he'd never get to make a sequel, let alone two. This
time round, he's 100% sure there'll be two sequels, so TPM is a lot
more open-ended as a result. To ignore this aspect is just being
silly.
Hands up all of you out there who thought TPM was just a one-off and
that no more SW films would ever be made? Well then -- don't act all
surprised when TPM doesn't tie up all the loose ends in a neat little
package.
True, this isn't an excuse for bad writing, but then I don't think TPM
was badly written. Sure, it has its flaws -- a middle section that's
too talky, some unnecessary Amidala/Padme decoy antics, humour that's
exclusively focused on one character, etc. -- but they're hardly a
major crime compared to what TPM does very well.
The original trilogy has just as many flaws. Unfortunately, for the
sake of their argument(s) against TPM, too many people are refusing to
entertain the notion that ANH is also less than perfect.
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <drowLPAG...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Sangraal
<Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <379A79EE...@bigfoot.com>, Andie <nic...@bigfoot.com>
> writes
>>I suppose you must be thinking of Jar Jar when saying this?
>>He takes some getting used to - a very energetic character he is.
>>As for the script, it's not much different from the orignal trilogy where
>>standards come in.
>
> I had no problem with Jar-Jar. He and the boy Lloyd saved the film.
> They were the only ones actually acting.
Here's where you should have said something about the Jedi being stiff or
wooden, maybe. Then I could respond, yep, they were supposed to be.
>
> As for the script: how anyone can say that the script for Phantom was
> 'not much different' from the bubbly, memorable and often funny banter
> in Star Wars, or Lawrence Kasdan's screenplay for the two sequels,
> simply beggars belief. Phantom's script was execrable.
Because they were written by the same person.
Everyone came to TPM thinking" This is going to be just like the first one."
No imaginations, the lot of them.
This is another part of the story. You have to expect differences, just like
the first three were each different from each other. These first three will
be likewise.
wes
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <379C5EE0...@mail2.nai.net>, J Perry Fecteau
<perf...@mail2.nai.net> wrote:
>
>
> Wes Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <Eqsm3.2822$V21.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Steve Pang"
>> <stev...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action
-
>>
>> How would you have told the story without them?
>
> ummmm... the same way he did in the classic movies???
Really. He did a city like Theed? He had main characters which followed no
know physical norm?
The original lightsabres didn't look fake from certain angles.
The original fight scenes with all the speed and excitement of watching eggs
cook?
>
>> > you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish.
>>
>> I felt it, must be you. Childish? Really? From a movie? Do tell.
>>
>> > Poor script.
>>
>> Like Transformers, it's more than meets the eye. I'll bet there are levels
>> to the story you missed. There aren't many movies that do even one level
>> well.
>
>
> he still did it alot better in the original trilogy. i can put up with
> the ewoks in jedi because it was still overall very good. episode one
> was very bad!
Define your terms. Just saying it was very bad is like me telling someone
they suck. It has no meaning.
>
>> > The first film was not strictly a kids film was it?
>>
>> Nope, not strictly for anyone, same here. Some people just got more cynical
>
> bullshit it was a disney wanna be. even disney could have done a better job.
Proof, proof and oh yeah, how about some proof. You've supplied no evidence
to your arguement.
>
>> > I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
>> > will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults, as
>> > we have done.
>>
>> Sorry you feel that way. I saw it and
>
> lucas fucked his fans period.
Oh, you're witty as well. Try using a dictionary once in awhile if you have
trouble finding a word to fit what you mean.
You're in the minority with that statement.
>
>> >
>> > Shame. Could EP2 be any worse?
>>
>> Lucas fully expects to lose 50% of his audience over the next two films.
>> He's going in a different direction which he thinks the fans might not like
>> since it is such a departure from the regular films.
>
> i.e. total shit compared to the original.
You have a very limited imagination. If you wanted to see the same exact
movies then go rent them if you don't own them already. These are different
films, because they describe a different time. If you can't wrap your brain
around that concept, then it's your loss.
wes
>
> --
> J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet.
> http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto
>
> Star Wars Review at:
> http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/7160/episodeone.html
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <379C6026...@mordor.gov>, Sauron <dark...@mordor.gov>
wrote:
> you are honestly comparing mark hamill tripping over his own feet and
> swinging a lightsabre like a fly swatter to the sabre style in TPM?!
> the point of the TPM looking so much more developed was that Obi-Wan was
> an old man, Luke was a boy trained by an old man, and Vader was a
> cripple walking around in an iron lung.
>
> J Perry Fecteau wrote:
>>
>> Steve Pang wrote:
>> >
>> > Too much CGI, in my opinion, which had the effect of distancing the action
-
>> > you didn't really feel you were 'there'. Too childish. Poor script. The Pod
>> > Race was well done, but the highlight was the lightsabre duel - brilliant,
>> > and with real actors too! What a bonus!
>>
>> alot of people say that the lightsabre duel was really cool. the moves
>> i say were cool but it look more like a kungfu flick than star wars.
>> compare that to the intensity of luke vs. vader in empire strikes back
>> and it pales. compare it to the tension between luke and the emporer in
>> return of the jedi and you're left completely flacid. i can't even
>> remember one line from maul. there's no sense of evil from maul. the
>> only clue is the red face and the horns... oooooooh... scaaaaarey!
You have a limited imagination, as eveidenced from your last two posts I've
read. If you have a point to make then please make it.
wes
>>
>> --
>> J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet.
>> http://w3.nai.net/~perfecto
>>
>> Star Wars Review at:
>> http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/7160/episodeone.html
>
> --
> Qui-Gon Jinn studied him a moment, then smirked, "Nobody likes a
> smart-ass, my young padawan."
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <37a0f6b9...@news.btinternet.com>,
tragedy....@SPAMYENOTbtinternet.com (TragedyTrousers) wrote:
> Simon Grierson sez:
>
>>TragedyTrousers <tragedy....@SPAMYENOTbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>
>>> I liked the way the fight ends when Obi-Wan appears to lose his cool (he
>>> certainly looks rather annoyed ;), as though his hate had made him
>>> weaker.
>>
>>Wonder if this will be used against him in the future?
>
> I also liked the thought that Qui Gon's lack of wisdom in not attempting
> to free Anakin's mother was a good example of how his reckless nature
> would have disastrous effects.
How was that a lack of wisdom? He tried and failed. Then he died.
wes
>
> The reason for Anakin failing the Jedi tests was his fear over his
> mother, which, as Yoda pointed out, would be what would lead him to the
> dark side in time to come.
>
>
> --
> TragedyTrousers.
> 4/10
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <R9RYMGAj...@jungsite.demon.co.uk>, Matt Bowman
<Ma...@jungsite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > The first film was not strictly a kids film was it?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, not strictly for anyone, same here. Some people just got more cynical
>>>
>>> bullshit it was a disney wanna be. even disney could have done a better
job.
>>
>>Proof, proof and oh yeah, how about some proof. You've supplied no evidence
>>to your arguement.
>>
>>>
>>>> > I have a feeling (yes, a bad feeling) that kids will love this movie but
>>>> > will grow out of it, rather than cherish it and return to it as adults,
as
>>>> > we have done.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry you feel that way. I saw it and
>>>
>>> lucas fucked his fans period.
>>
>>Oh, you're witty as well. Try using a dictionary once in awhile if you have
>>trouble finding a word to fit what you mean.
>> You're in the minority with that statement.
>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>
> How about we try to keep this discussion from becoming a flame war, huh.
I always find that funny. Are we supposed to treat these individuals like
they have some sort of 'special' status?
This is a discussion group. Those with delicate sensibilities perhaps should
consider another enviroment.
wes
> Matt Bowman
Wes Hutchings
----------
In article <cdHbkLA5...@jungsite.demon.co.uk>, Matt Bowman
<Ma...@jungsite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <37aae29e...@news.clara.net>, Mark Stevens
> <ma...@headspin.clara.net> writes
>>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:19:56 GMT, "Simon Grierson"
>><sim...@NOSPAMclara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>As I have said before, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I found no
>>>major faults in the storytelling or script myself.
>>
>>Me neither. It told a simple story in a clean, efficient manner. It
>>would appear that many of the "shit script" merchants had problems
>>remembering names or discerning intentions, motivations and reasons
>>why things happened. Given that I've seen TPM with quite a few non-SW
>>fans who understood everything perfectly, I find it difficult to
>>believe they had some trouble in this area.
>>
>>Some people also want new characters in TPM to be as cosy and familiar
>>after one screening of the movie as the old characters in ANH did
>>after fifty screenings of the movie. Can't work that one out either. I
>>think a lot of the anti-TPM brigade were looking for over-familiarity
>>in the movie. Whilst TPM was very recognisably Star Wars, Lucas also
>>added a few extra shades of colour to the universe. These were perhaps
>>a bit too alien for the die-hard fanatics -- hence they don't like it.
>>Hence they think the script's shit.
>>
> Look, I don't know about other people but I didn't into the cinema
> expecting anything other than a good movie. I didn't want to cuddle the
> characters or relive some lost childhood. I wanted to see a good movie.
> Thats all.
>
> How can you say a script as inane as that is good? Plot aside there was
> no sense of the characters, instead they came out with ludicrous remarks
> and exposition.
Inane? How? This is the beginning of the story. I've heard complaints of
certain characters being too wooden. Dialog being dumb. I used to think
after the first screening that the dialog was off a little in some areas,
but after watching it a few times you notice the different levels to the
story and understand why a certain phrase was said a certain way.
Lucas went to great lengths to convey a lot of information.
people missed some of it, perhaps a lot of it and rather than figure out
why. They decide it was the films thought.
I'll grant that in many cases you can watch a film and say to yourself that
it did indeed suck.
I don't feel that this is one of those cases.
>
> There was no progression - the characters showed no depth at all. I
> guess we were supposed to marvel when the queen revealed herself to be
> the handmaiden but who hadn't guessed it by the time she went down onto
> Tatooie? Even the remark she made - that is was done out of the need for
> protection, not curiosity betrayed any warmth that might have been
> created from the scenes.
Which characters showed no depth? The Jedi were very calm and straight
forward. This was equated with wooden by an audience that has a hard time
distinguishing the difference.
Why marvel at anything in the film?
You're upset, because Lucas didn't reveal her the way you wanted? Is that
what you're saying. It sounds like it.
Guess what. It's not our film.
wes
>
>
>>The original trilogy has just as many flaws. Unfortunately, for the
>>sake of their argument(s) against TPM, too many people are refusing to
>>entertain the notion that ANH is also less than perfect.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Mark Stevens
>>
>>http://www.headspin.clara.net/
>
> Matt Bowman
>
> "Due to unexpected delays due to superstition and ignorance the end of the
> world has now been delayed until the next millenium.
> We thank you for you patience."
>
gareth young
Matt Bowman wrote in message ...
>I've just realised what TPM needed to make it great.
>
>Peter Cushing!!!
>
>If they'd taken the whole movie out and just had one scene with Peter
>Cushing having a chat with Darth Sididious and Darth Maul then the movie
>would have been al lot better - It's not like it would have been that
>much different either - there was so much exposition by the other, less
>interesting characters. It would also have set up the other movies just
>like TPM did if they'd talked about their plans a bit.
>
Gareth.
i lost my signature and can't be bothered.
Justin
> CGI and real world stuff. For example, the palace was not CGI but was infact
> a palace in Italy.
Yes, this is interesting - perhaps we are seeing the (long overdue)
emergence of a sort of sensoral skepticism, eg people going into a
theatre now with the assumption that anything they see that does not
seem real, likely, or possible, is CG.
Obviously, for a long time now, "the camera never lies" has been so
false that "the camera virtually never tells the truth" would be more
accurate, especially in anything to do with advertising. I get the
impression that people are catching on to this, but I suspect there are
still strongholds of trust in video footage (unless it's video footage
from Milosevic or Hussien or other source designated (by television) to
be demonic liars :-)
These are interesting times...
TragedyTrousers
>Am I the only one who noticed the fact that Palpatine was there, and just as
>it was being speculated upon the fact that there where two lords of the
>Sith, a Master and an apprenitce- the camera swung to Palpatine?
I spotted it too.
"But which one was it, the apprentice or the master?"
And there he is, in the close up profile that we usually see the Emperor
in. Very nice, and also very eerie. :)
I thought that Ian McDiarmid (sp?) as the Senator was one the highlights
of the film - gave me the creeps every time he was on screen, especially
in his utterly half-hearted attempt to persuade the Queen not to return
home.
--
TragedyTrousers.
6/10
TragedyTrousers
>TragedyTrousers <tragedy....@SPAMYENOTbtinternet.com> wrote in message
>> I liked the way the fight ends when Obi-Wan appears to lose his cool (he
>> certainly looks rather annoyed ;), as though his hate had made him
>> weaker.
>
>Wonder if this will be used against him in the future?
I also liked the thought that Qui Gon's lack of wisdom in not attempting
to free Anakin's mother was a good example of how his reckless nature
would have disastrous effects.
The reason for Anakin failing the Jedi tests was his fear over his