TPM "Apologists" are not being objective
Glenn Saunders
Here are my responses to the apologists. I'm a Led Zeppelin fan, and
I find parallels here between TPM and the recent Page Plant album. A
lot of expectations, bad reviews, and apologists coming out of the
woodworks who fail to be objective about the failings of the new work.
Here is my response to that:
1) Reviewers are giving bad reviews to TPM because they always give
bad reviews to SW films:
Response:
Today's reviewers are often a different generation from 1977.
They are often the same generation of fans who originally were
enthralled by ANH when it came out. Even if they aren't, many of them
have come to understand, in 22 years, the appeal of SW, what makes it
work, and what doesn't (i.e. Ewoks).
Reviewers also now have a standard to compare TPM to, the
existing trilogy. There was nothing to compare ANH to. It was
totally original (in a pastiche sort of way).
2) TPM will seem better after EPII and EPIII.
A successful Star Wars film succeeds as a standalone. ANH
certainly doesn't need the other two films. Empire needs an ending,
but it does have its own internal flow. The characters have
passion-play choices to make with dire consequences. ROJ has the
resolution of this passion play in Vader killing the Emperor, etc...
EP1 only advances the plot. It barely advances the characters. It
could, perhaps, but nothing is ever expressed in the dialogue to
indicate that the characters have changed significantly. That they
change in II and III won't make I any better as an individual film.
3) It's all just unrealistically high expectations.
The fact is that many could have made a better film other than
Lucas. The Jedi council was nothing but an animated background when
it could have been presented as a vital, lively Knights of the
Roundtable. Yoda has barely anything of note to say. Nobody has
anything that profound to say. Where this film should have been more
mystical but still safely "generic" in its religion, Lucas goes in two
wrong directions at once, destroying the religion with a biological
explanation for the force, and raising the Christ-spectre with virgin
birth.
We don't really learn that much about how Jedi are trained.
We don't see any other Jedi in training at Coruscant, or get any more
of the atmosphere than purely a superficial level. The whole movie is
just plopped into our lap on a superficial level. If it looks
authentic, it is supposed to seem to have depth and weight, but it
doesn't.
Lucas himself said that the new trilogy would be darker and
more adult, but we have gotten a case of bait and switch. The Phantom
Menace at times plays like a bigger budget Ewok Adventure. The scenes
with Anakin and his young friends, for instance, are of no interest to
anyone older than 8. The conflict is light enough so that a 4 year
old won't get disturbed by the danger to the main characters. Classic
G-rated plotting. Nobody would have predicted a film this light and
frivolous. Some of the aliens look as childlike as anything in A
Bug's Life.
The choice to have aliens speak in BASIC (english) without
subtitles is a classic flaw. Perhaps Lucas felt it would be bad for
his young demographic to have to read subtitles, but we're now seeing
the main reason it HAD to be subtitles. Dubbed aliens speaking in
their native language still suspends disbelief. Dubbed aliens
speaking in goofy accents are mostly laughable. There are few
examples in the existing trilogy where aliens were dubbed in english.
And those that exist, the voices were okay (Ackbar for instance). At
times I felt I was watching Battle Beyond the Stars or something!
Lucas had nobody to take him aside and warn him about this stuff.
The mysteries of Sidious and the Sith are kept a secret to be
later revealed, but it would have been better to provide more
background there rather than leaving us with the main depth to the
Star Wars world coming in the form of seeing the Senate bicker. Just
read about Exar Khun in Jedi Apprentice. The back-story there was
more compelling than TPM. Compare the saber duel to the one between
Obi Wan and Vader. The big difference? DIALOGUE! Obi-Wan fighting
Vader was the resolution of a long conflict. It reflected in the
dialogue. Obi Wan sacrificed himself to save Luke. Vader revealed a
lot about his character to Obi Wan in that scene. The fighting was
not the point, it was a character scene. The fight in TPM, aside from
"No", is completely without dialogue! Maul doesn't say "and now, I
have had my revenge" and Qui doesn't say "where did you come from".
It's just kill or be killed. Pointless action for the sake of action.
It takes place in a background reminiscent of Empire, but we don't
have any hands getting cut off, or any "join me" or any sort of
character conflict or choice going on. It doesn't resonate on any
emotional level. Even 2-bit action movies have their villain
pontificate on how great evil is and how boring good is while they
fight to the death. Why not TPM?
The only expectation we can have is that it at least follows
the successful formula of the existing trilogy, and as far as
character, plot, and in some cases design, it does not.
4) It's just a movie:
ANH transcends being just a movie. It always has to me, ever since I
first saw it at age 7. It can still give me goosebumps if I'm in the
right situation. Only a handful of movies in the history can have
that timeless appeal. It's not just nostalgia. It hit on all
cyllinders in 77 and it still does, even though I can spot the
failings in the FX and acting more now than I used to.
ANH starts out with a blank slate, and like a fine symphony it builds
to the perfect climax of the death star. Like The Lord of the Rings,
it plucks an isolated character who knows nothing about the world
around him out of his element and thrusts him into a world where he is
important. We identify with his naivete and we learn with him and
enjoy his successes as if they were our own. The force isn't just a
known aspect of the world the film lives in, it is something we are
expected to believe in to the point where when Luke retracts the
targeting computer, he is taking that leap of faith.
In TPM it's just a snot-nosed kid narrating himself as he clumsily
works his way into the hangar and blows up the control ship. His
acheivement means little other than to illustrate how lucky he may be.
Fate in ANH was tempered with moral choices. TPM has little to none.
And that is HEARTBREAKING to the die hard fans. It detracts from the
existing trilogy. When Obi Wan says "I haven't been called Obi Wan
for a long time" we now have images of TPM clouding our imaginations.
We can never imagine the grand knights of the old the way they should
have been. We can only imagine the all too routine Jedi council in
TPM. Even worse, we'll have flashbacks to Jar Jar walking in dog shit
or the two-headed announcer doing a schtick or the pillsbury dough boy
alien (like that green old guy who pops up occasionally in The
Simpsons) having trouble with his pod racer.
CONCLUSION:
Tolkien thought about making a sequel to The Lord of the
Rings. He didn't because he knew that the 3rd age was the dramatic
center of Middle-Earth. Instead he presented the back-story, but not
in a novelistic style. In a way, that disappointed fans, but he never
tried to make The Silmarillion as accessible as a real novel. It was
just supposed to emulate a bunch of old books, like the Bible or
something. A collection of short-stories and fables.
In the existing trilogy, I fear that the backstory works
better as backstory than as a series of movies. Better alluded to
than presented in full. However, if you were to present it, it
deserves a lot more care than what TPM got. If the old republic was a
golden age, then you have to express that in more powerful ways. Let
the camera languish or pan across the faces of the Jedi council while
John Williams' score pounds like Korngold in Adventures of Robin Hood.
Play up the heroism, the super-human qualities of the jedi. Don't
just present them in matter-of-fact sound-bites or out of focus
backgrounds. TPM is epic only in its use of longshots. Even a
spaghetti western director like Leone knew what it took to make a hero
for the screen, dramatic pause and closeups. Very careful blocking of
the actors. Every twitch was important. Lucas just doesn't care.
I fear that Lucas feels that the best way to make his world
seem alive is by turning it into an orgy of computer generated
imagery. Unfortunately, this has the same effect as Ralph Bakshi used
(intentionally) in Cool World but with Cell animation. It distracts
the eye. But with a plot this thin, that's probably a good thing.
In that sense, you could call TPM "Star Wars: Visual Graffiti"
I hate having to render such an opinion, and I'm sure the
mindless defenders will continue, but you must be objective. Every
reviewer is criticizing the film on the same valid points. Eventually
even the most die-hard fan must come out of the clouds and judge TPM,
and he will realize that all the criticism heaped upon it has been
truly fair.
I really doubt anyone who has fooled themselves into loving
TPM can say they love it for reasons they WANTED to love it for when
anticipating it. You just love what the movie delivers on, and have
tried to forget whatever expectations you had. Well, most people
can't do that, and nobody should have to. Even if I had never seen
Star Wars, I would never get the same response out of TPM as I did
from SW. The soul of SW just isn't there. Aside from the opening
crawl, it just isn't SW.
The moral of the story is that I think either Lucas has
changed for the worse (i.e. technophile, nothing more to say) or that
people like Kirshner and Kasdan had more to do with making SW work
than anyone would like to admit. It's probably a little of both.
ZapPowBam
I'd like to thank Glenn for an intelligent, well-written and most of all,
a truly heartfelt review of The Phantom Menace. I agree with
absolutely all of his points and he even brought up some that I hadn't
even considered yet.
I wish that defenders of Episode I would simply understand that
those of us who dislike TPM do NOT enjoy disliking it. No one
wanted to love TPM more than I -- it was a devastating, heart-
breaking experience for me.
Most of the pro-TPM defenses I've seen usually go no further than
saying, "I don't care what the critics say, this movie ROCKED!"
or "People who bash TPM just don't get Star Wars." I would
truly, deeply appreciate a defender of TPM to respond point by
point to Glenn's analysis, avoiding any of the personal insults
which taint so many passionate but misguided defenses of this
film.
I love Star Wars. I worship The Empire Strikes Back. I kinda
like Return of the Jedi, I guess. But believe me, it pains me to
say that I hate The Phantom Menace.
Thanks again, Glenn, for wonderfully articulating all of my own
concerns about this tragic disappointment.
Remove DVDRULES to respond via e-mail
---------------------------------
"Your 'netiquette' is very poor."
- Joe Kelsey (10/29/98)
---------------------------------
Galactica2
>Here are my responses to the apologists.
First of all, I'd like to start by saying that your post is pretty insulting in
that it assumes that all of us who liked TPM are mindless sheep who can't think
for ourselves and have fooled ourselves into liking the movie out of our desire
to like it. Dude, I have no problem believing you didn't like the movie -- why
is it so difficult for you to believe that I loved it - honestly,
unflinchingly, with full presence of mind - loved it. I am not an apologist,
for I have nothing to apologize for. I could make a whole bunch of sweeping
generalizations about everyone who didn't like TPM, but I'll stick to just
you... :)
> Today's reviewers are often a different generation from 1977.
>They are often the same generation of fans who originally were
>enthralled by ANH when it came out. Even if they aren't, many of them
>have come to understand, in 22 years, the appeal of SW, what makes it
>work, and what doesn't (i.e. Ewoks).
Maybe *you* (and many others) feel you know what makes SW work and not work. I
know what makes it work for me and me alone -- open your mind and realize that
art works differently for other people than it does for you. You and the
critics may feel you've got it figured out (i.e., Ewoks suck) and you have a
right to your opinion. But you don't speak for every SW fan. I like the
Ewoks. I'm not afraid to say it. I liked TPM too. If that means I don't
"get" SW, then I guess I'm not as smart as you.
As for the critics being of a different generation than in the late '70s/early
'80s, well, that's not entirely true. A lot of them are the same exact people.
Also, reviewers in general do not view movies the way most moviegoers do (this
is obvious by comparing reviews to box office grosses -- neither of which
should have an affect on shaping your opinion of the film, by the way). Here's
my rant on critics, flame me if you want: critics are (I know I'm generalizing)
sad, bitter people who feel powerless in general and only get to feel powerful
by pronouncing their Important Opinions. Critics are people who are really
excited about art (in this case, movies) but lack either the courage or the
talent (or both, but usually the first) to pursue filmmaking directly; instead,
they take the easy way out and make their living criticizing the work of
others; they don't create, they only destroy. They are the eunechs of the harem
-- powerless to create. It makes them feel powerful to knock off the big guy
(which is why it makes sense to me that one of the only positive review came
from Ebert, since he is obviously pretty successful and probably pretty
satisfied with his life -- which makes it easier for him to sit back and enjoy
a movie without sniping). (Again, I'm talking about professional reviewers,
not folks like us posting our opinions on the web.) So it should be no surprise
that critics didn't enjoy the film - they are looking at it through a whole
other set of eyes than the rest of us, unable evaluate movies on different
levels from one another. They deserve our pity.
> Reviewers also now have a standard to compare TPM to, the
>existing trilogy. There was nothing to compare ANH to. It was
>totally original (in a pastiche sort of way).
But is it a fair standard? Is the best movie ever made (IMHO) a fair standard
for comparison. Even if you feel it is, I feel most reviewers have still not
used the comparison wisely -- either, they say, TPM is too much like ANH, or
not enough like ANH. They complain about the elements of ANH that can't be
found in TPM, yet few would doubt that if TPM were "too" similar to ANH they'd
complain about that instead. I've noticed that most viewers (be they critics,
fans, or otherwise) who go in comparing it to the other SW films emerge with
tons of complaints, while those who go in just hoping to have a good time are
generally satisfied. I'm sure you were hoping to have a good time too, but
judging by your comments, you also went in with a whole slew of things you
wanted to see. Of course, when those things weren't shown, you were
disappointed. Instead of judging the movie by what you don't see, how about
taking a look at what you do see.
> A successful Star Wars film succeeds as a standalone.
Agreed... I feel that TPM does, though, succeed as a stand-alone. There's no
real way to argue this, it's a matter of subjective opinion. I loved it as a
movie experience, though of course I got even deeper enjoyment and insight out
of it when I placed it in the context of the other SW films; that's true of the
other three as well.
>ANH
>certainly doesn't need the other two films. Empire needs an ending,
>but it does have its own internal flow.
So by saying it needs an ending, are you saying it doesn't stand on its own? I
felt TPM had its own internal flow too, it was just different from the others
and took some getting used to. I'll freely admit I had mixed feelings the
first time I saw TPM -- it was so different from the other SW films and I had
16 years of expectations weighing me down; however, once I accepted the movie
on its own terms and could look at it sans expectations, I've found it's gotten
better and better every time (4 times now) and that the only reason my feelings
were mixed before was because it was all just so damn new and unfamiliar -
totally unlike the other three movies. But new is good, and I think in the
long run I would have been very disappointed if the new movies were just carbon
copies of the old.
> The characters have
>passion-play choices to make with dire consequences. ROJ has the
>resolution of this passion play in Vader killing the Emperor, etc...
>EP1 only advances the plot. It barely advances the characters. It
>could, perhaps, but nothing is ever expressed in the dialogue to
>indicate that the characters have changed significantly. That they
>change in II and III won't make I any better as an individual film.
And how did Han develop and change in ROTJ? What about Chewie -- what was his
development over the course of the trilogy? And let's look at ANH - where's
the character development in Leia, Vader, Kenobi, Tarkin, et al.? In TPM, I
saw subtle development in Kenobi, Anakin, Amidala, and Qui-Gon, Boss Nass, and
even Jar Jar - subtle development, yes, but how much more could they develop in
the (what?) three days or so the movie spans? One of the critics' main
problems with the original trilogy was what they perceived as a lack of
character development, especially in ANH. Are they suddenly right about TPM
but still wrong about ANH. The critics' opinions are irrelevant. Your opinion
is that there was no development in TPM, mine is that there was. Who's right?
(Wait, I think I know you're answer...) The real answer is we're both right --
what's in this movie? Only what you take with you...
> The fact is that many could have made a better film other than
>Lucas.
Like who? You? Give it a try. Or go make your own, original film. You might
discover it's not quite as easy as armchair quarterbacking.
>The Jedi council was nothing but an animated background when
>it could have been presented as a vital, lively Knights of the
>Roundtable.
Once again, you're looking at the movie you wanted to see in your head, not the
one on screen. Sure, the Jedi Council could have been presented as a vital,
battling force; they could also have been portrayed as a bunch of wacky hockey
enthusiasts, or a breakdancing hip-hop band. I would love to complain about all
the things that weren't in TPM -- for instance, I love Woody Allen movies, so
where was the neurotic comedy that insightfully commented on our romantic
foibles? I also love Coen brothers comedies, but there were no crazy crane
shots or long, sweeping tracking shots; I'm a big fan of Shawshank Redemption,
too, but there were no parts in this movie where Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan bonded the
way Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman did in that movie. Excalibur was cool, too,
and I would have vastly preferred if the Jedi Council were more like the
mideival Knights of the Roundtable as I imagined -- oh wait, that was your
preference. My point, again, is that once you accept that TPM is not the
perfect movie you envisioned in your head, you may actually like it, or at
least be able to acknowledge it's not terrible.
>Yoda has barely anything of note to say. Nobody has
>anything that profound to say.
I disagree. I think his little speech about fear leading to the dark side,
which we all know from the trailer, is quite profound. Not everyone realizes
the connection between fear and hate. I also thought Qui-Gon had plenty of
interesting things to say.
>Where this film should have been more
>mystical but still safely "generic" in its religion, Lucas goes in two
>wrong directions at once, destroying the religion with a biological
>explanation for the force, and raising the Christ-spectre with virgin
>birth.
The virgin birth thing doesn't really bother me but it was definitely
surprising. I was not happy about the midichlorian (sp?) thing either, but
that was because I thought they were saying that only people with midichlorians
can have the Force, but now I understand it to mean that the midis help people
get in touch with the Force, not provide the Force, and I see how it relates to
the many themes of symbiotic relationshiops in TPM, so it means more to me.
I'm not sure ultimately what I'll think about it, but for now I think it's
interesting that Lucas, through the midis/Force, as well as the whole thing
about "once they get the Naboo they get you (Gungans) too" and the line about
people needing to help eachother, is pushing the idea that we are all
interconnected and dependent on each other for survival and success.
> We don't really learn that much about how Jedi are trained.
>We don't see any other Jedi in training at Coruscant, or get any more
>of the atmosphere than purely a superficial level.
Again, these are things you wanted to see in the movie. Try to evaluate the
film based on what is in it, not what isn't. You've always been curious about
the Jedi training, apparently; imagine seeing the movie without a list of what
should be in it. Perhaps it was easier for you to love ANH because you came in
with a blank slate.
>The whole movie is
>just plopped into our lap on a superficial level. If it looks
>authentic, it is supposed to seem to have depth and weight, but it
>doesn't.
This was the same rap critics had on ANH, ESB and ROTJ. But to me, rather than
the movie looking weighty but lacking depth, I had the opposite experience. The
first time I saw it I found it more superficial and less weighty than the
others; upon repeat viewings, I find more and more depth and meaning beneath
the surface. Maybe you won't when you see it again, but there are a lot of us
who do.
> Lucas himself said that the new trilogy would be darker and
>more adult, but we have gotten a case of bait and switch.
I love the people who think Lucas "owes" them something with this movie.
>The Phantom
>Menace at times plays like a bigger budget Ewok Adventure.
Come on, it may be geared toward kids, but it's A LOT better than the Ewok
Adventure!
>The scenes
>with Anakin and his young friends, for instance, are of no interest to
>anyone older than 8.
I guess I'm an idiot because I was interested, and I'm 27. It helped that
those "scenes" (I only remember one, when he's working on his pod) were very
short, because I'll agree there's not much happening. However, in the context
of the larger story, I found it interesting to see Anakin's relationship with
the other local kids. I agree it wasn't the strongest 2 minutes in the movie -
but then neither is the one minute of Biggs restored to the ANH SE.
>The conflict is light enough so that a 4 year
>old won't get disturbed by the danger to the main characters. Classic
>G-rated plotting. Nobody would have predicted a film this light and
>frivolous. Some of the aliens look as childlike as anything in A
>Bug's Life.
Yeah, what a bummer that kids will really enjoy this movie. I was 5 when I saw
ANH, and I loved it. I was happy to take my nephew to TPM and watch him enjoy
it (he's 13, and I'm taking my nine-year-old neice this weekend). You know,
many people find ANH and ROTJ "light and frivolous" -- not every movie can be
ESB. On the other hand, I personally did not find TPM to be light and
frivolous - in fact I thought its approach to the politics of the situation
were fairly "adult" and sophisticated -- it's only the lack of violence that
makes the movie seem "G-rated" -- since when was SW *not* for the whole family
anyway? I like plenty of different kinds of movies - I love Pulp Fiction, for
example, but not because of its R-rated elements, just because it's a good
story, well told. That's why I like TPM -- a good story, well told.
> The choice to have aliens speak in BASIC (english) without
>subtitles is a classic flaw.
LOL! Yes, this is the classic flaw that will keep people away in droves!
>Perhaps Lucas felt it would be bad for
>his young demographic to have to read subtitles, but we're now seeing
>the main reason it HAD to be subtitles.
Well, it IS difficult for little kids to read subtitles during a movie.... I
love all the alien languages too, but I don't think aliens speak "basic" takes
away from the movie. After all, it's already a leap to believe that Qui-Gon
and all the other "humans" speak English anyway.
>Dubbed aliens speaking in
>their native language still suspends disbelief. Dubbed aliens
>speaking in goofy accents are mostly laughable.
I wasn't crazy about the Neimoidians' accent (sounded like Dracula to me) but
they grew on me. Still, it hardly seemed a major point.
>There are few
>examples in the existing trilogy where aliens were dubbed in english.
>And those that exist, the voices were okay (Ackbar for instance).
So it's OK when the aliens speak English if you think their voices are cool
(like in the SW movies you saw as a kid) but not if you don't their voices are
cool (like in TPM)?
>At
>times I felt I was watching Battle Beyond the Stars or something!
>Lucas had nobody to take him aside and warn him about this stuff.
I don't think Lucas is quite as stupid as you imply. I have a feeling he tried
many different voices for each alien before deciding on the ones he liked best.
What warning do you give him other than your opinion? He's already said that
after he invited filmmaker friends to see a rough cut of TPM, he asked for
their suggestions and acted on some of them -- only to go back and change most
things back to the way they were. Lucas trusts his own instincts, and usually
his choices resonate with most people. When they don't (Howard the Duck,
etc.), they don't. But usually they do.
> The mysteries of Sidious and the Sith are kept a secret to be
>later revealed, but it would have been better to provide more
>background there rather than leaving us with the main depth to the
>Star Wars world coming in the form of seeing the Senate bicker.
At least *someone* on this newsgroup knows what "would have been better." :)
>Just
>read about Exar Khun in Jedi Apprentice. The back-story there was
>more compelling than TPM.
Oh I see, so the movie should be more like the books. Maybe it was more
compelling in that book. I never read it and probably never will. But maybe
if GL had made the movie just like that book, you would be complaining that
there are no original ideas in the movie. He can't win. Better for him to
just tell the story he wants to tell, and hope people enjoy it.
>Compare the saber duel to the one between
>Obi Wan and Vader. The big difference? DIALOGUE! Obi-Wan fighting
>Vader was the resolution of a long conflict. It reflected in the
>dialogue. Obi Wan sacrificed himself to save Luke. Vader revealed a
>lot about his character to Obi Wan in that scene.
So Qui-Gon and Maul should have recycled all the dialogue from Obi-Wan/Vader in
ANH? This is a different movie -- repeat after me, a different movie.
>The fighting was
>not the point, it was a character scene.
I agree -- about ANH. But in the scene in TPM, the fighting *was* the point.
>The fight in TPM, aside from
>"No", is completely without dialogue! Maul doesn't say "and now, I
>have had my revenge" and Qui doesn't say "where did you come from".
>It's just kill or be killed. Pointless action for the sake of action.
>It takes place in a background reminiscent of Empire, but we don't
>have any hands getting cut off, or any "join me" or any sort of
>character conflict or choice going on. It doesn't resonate on any
>emotional level. Even 2-bit action movies have their villain
>pontificate on how great evil is and how boring good is while they
>fight to the death. Why not TPM?
Yes it would have been great if the duel scene in TPM were exactly like the
duel in ANH, or those in ESB and ROTJ. But I've already seen those movies. GL
already made those movies. He made a different movie this time. I know I'm a
broken record here, but look at the duel in TPM on its own merits, then decided
if you like it or not.
> The only expectation we can have is that it at least follows
>the successful formula of the existing trilogy, and as far as
>character, plot, and in some cases design, it does not.
It follows the formula enough to fit in as a SW film, and diverges enough to
become its own creature.
>ANH transcends being just a movie. It always has to me, ever since I
>first saw it at age 7. It can still give me goosebumps if I'm in the
>right situation. Only a handful of movies in the history can have
>that timeless appeal. It's not just nostalgia. It hit on all
>cyllinders in 77 and it still does, even though I can spot the
>failings in the FX and acting more now than I used to.
I agree, I feel the same way, I still get chills when I watch ANH despite the
flaws, just like you. But come on, don't you think this has a lot to do with
you being 7 (and me being 5) when we first saw it and it first impacted our
lives? Do you think it's really fair to compair TPM to ANH this way? You're
bound to not like it because you're not a kid! After all, I may love the woman
my father married when I was 24, but she's not my mom and she never will be.
I'll never feel the same way about her as I did about my mother, who was in my
life from the very beginning, and at a time when I looked at the world very
differently than I do today. When you say you're able to still get chills from
ANH despite it's flaws, you're revealing that the main reason you don't like
TPM very much is because you're not able to feel 7 again when you watch it.
How could you? ANH may indeed be more than just a movie to you (and me) but to
say that TPM is a failure because it is just a movie and not something more is
ridiculous.
>ANH starts out with a blank slate, and like a fine symphony it builds
>to the perfect climax of the death star. Like The Lord of the Rings,
>it plucks an isolated character who knows nothing about the world
>around him out of his element and thrusts him into a world where he is
>important. We identify with his naivete and we learn with him and
>enjoy his successes as if they were our own. The force isn't just a
>known aspect of the world the film lives in, it is something we are
>expected to believe in to the point where when Luke retracts the
>targeting computer, he is taking that leap of faith.
>In TPM it's just a snot-nosed kid narrating himself as he clumsily
>works his way into the hangar and blows up the control ship. His
>acheivement means little other than to illustrate how lucky he may be.
>Fate in ANH was tempered with moral choices. TPM has little to none.
Lucky or just more in touch with the Force than he yet realizes? I can't even
respond to your above comparisons because to me they are irrelevant. I'm
looking at TPM on its own merits, not how it stacks up next to ANH. Of course,
ANH blows TPM away in my mind, but that hardly means TPM didn't deliver. It
did, for me, and it continues to.
>And that is HEARTBREAKING to the die hard fans.
I am a die-hard fan. No matter what you think, I am. (There's no way or
reason for me to try to "prove" it.) So please in the future speak for
yourself -- it is heartbreaking to you. But this diehard fan (that's me) never
attached such unrealistic or unfair expectations to TPM. Oh sure, my
expectations were high, but not so unrealistic to think that TPM could ever be
everything I hoped it would be 10 years ago. Rather than heartbreaking, I
found TPM to be inspiring, and my heart is actually filled with joy that a new
SW trilogy is upon us, and SW will be here through 2005! In that way, my
childhood dream *did* come true. And so did many others'. I hope someday
you'll join us. TPM really is a wonderful thing, from more than a certain
point of view.
>It detracts from the
>existing trilogy. When Obi Wan says "I haven't been called Obi Wan
>for a long time" we now have images of TPM clouding our imaginations.
I thought this was a good thing -- I've always wanted to see what his early
life was like.
>We can never imagine the grand knights of the old the way they should
>have been.
"Should have" been? Oh sorry, I forgot you were the keeper/expert on all
things Star Wars. I mistakenly thought that was George Lucas.
>We can only imagine the all too routine Jedi council in
>TPM. Even worse, we'll have flashbacks to Jar Jar walking in dog shit
>or the two-headed announcer doing a schtick or the pillsbury dough boy
>alien (like that green old guy who pops up occasionally in The
>Simpsons) having trouble with his pod racer.
Heavens no, I would hate to have flashbacks to that great podracing scene! And
Jar Jar stepping in "poodoo" -- how will I ever be able to live with that? It
will really detract from my enjoyment of the other movies (especially the burps
in ROTJ). Just when I am watching the amazing Hoth battle in ESB, I will
flashback to that terribly routine Jedi Council and become sad and unable to
enjoy ESB. Yeah, right.
> In the existing trilogy, I fear that the backstory works
>better as backstory than as a series of movies.
I'm sorry you fear that, but remember where fear leads... :)
I, on the other hand, have faith that it will work GREAT as a series of movie,
and so far we're off to a good start. If it turns out I don't like the new
trilogy, it will hardly be the end of my world.
>Better alluded to
>than presented in full. However, if you were to present it, it
>deserves a lot more care than what TPM got.
Right - it's clear how little care went into making TPM. Pretty much slapped
together. Did you notice how little detail there was? LOL!
If the old republic was a
>golden age, then you have to express that in more powerful ways. Let
>the camera languish or pan across the faces of the Jedi council while
>John Williams' score pounds like Korngold in Adventures of Robin Hood.
>Play up the heroism, the super-human qualities of the jedi. Don't
>just present them in matter-of-fact sound-bites or out of focus
>backgrounds. TPM is epic only in its use of longshots.
Bad news, my friend -- the original SW trilogy is much the same way. In fact,
that was always one of the things I liked about -- it shied away from "epic"
shots by presenting the ships, characters, hardware, etc., in the background,
as though they were just matter-of-fact elements of daily life in the Star Wars
universe.
But again, if you are so sure you know how to make a great movie (and I'm not
trying to be condescending here, even if it sounds that way) then go for it!!
Make a movie!! It will be different from SW, but that's not necessarily a bad
thing! I'm serious - you seem to have very specific ideas - why not try them
out? You might gain a lot more respect for GL in the process - or you might
blow him out of the water. But at least you'll be more than a sniping fanboy
nitpicking a great movie to death.
>Even a
>spaghetti western director like Leone knew what it took to make a hero
>for the screen, dramatic pause and closeups. Very careful blocking of
>the actors. Every twitch was important. Lucas just doesn't care.
Just doesn't care?? Ridiculous. Can't even dignify that with much of a
response. My, how quick we are to turn on our heroes. I think he does care,
he just hasn't made the movie you would, or that you would like to see. That
doesn't mean he doesn't care about making a good movie - only that you think he
failed.
> I fear that Lucas feels that the best way to make his world
>seem alive is by turning it into an orgy of computer generated
>imagery.
More fear. I sense much fear in you...
>Unfortunately, this has the same effect as Ralph Bakshi used
>(intentionally) in Cool World but with Cell animation. It distracts
>the eye. But with a plot this thin, that's probably a good thing.
Personally, I was worried all the CG stuff would be distracting, but I found it
seamless. I thought it made the environments all the richer, and that it was
done well enough to not take me out of the film and feel it looked fake.
(Incidentally, I didn't feel that about Jabba in ANH SE -- he's come a long way
in this one.)
> In that sense, you could call TPM "Star Wars: Visual Graffiti"
>
> I hate having to render such an opinion, and I'm sure the
>mindless defenders will continue, but you must be objective.
It is far more mindless to assume that anyone with a differing opinion to yours
is "mindless." It makes you look dumb.
I have been objective. Is it so hard to believe I genuinely liked the film? I
can believe you didn't like the film, and I don't need to call you names for
it. Every movie has its fans and its detractors. I am a fan of TPM, you're a
detractor, and I'm sure we've both thought through our positions pretty
clearly.
Be mindful, my friend, not mindless.
>Every
>reviewer is criticizing the film on the same valid points.
Not every one - many are contradictory, saying the movie was plotless, or had
too much plot; too much humor, not enough humor; no heart, too much warmth.
Blah blah, blah -- and a few of the critics even liked it (very few).
>Eventually
>even the most die-hard fan must come out of the clouds and judge TPM,
>and he will realize that all the criticism heaped upon it has been
>truly fair.
I guess I am still waiting for that day, but I have a feeling I'll remain in
the clouds for a while. Seriously, do you really think that every person who
likes TPM will one day change their minds? Surely people on both sides of the
equation will change their minds, but probably most will not change their
opinions, whether they like it or not.
> I really doubt anyone who has fooled themselves into loving
>TPM can say they love it for reasons they WANTED to love it for when
>anticipating it.
I can -- I wanted to love it for being a fun movie that took me back into the
Star Wars universe, and that is one of the many reasons I do love it. The rest
of the reasons were complete surprises, as I didn't have any real specific
reasons in mind that I wanted love TPM. As I've said before, that is probably
the reason you reacted so negatively -- because you had already decided what
the movie had to be in order to be good, and then when it wasn't what you
wanted, you were hurt and upset - heartbroken, as you said. Hey, I understand
- but I also think you did it to yourself. Your reaction was pretty much
inevitable.
>You just love what the movie delivers on, and have
>tried to forget whatever expectations you had. Well, most people
>can't do that, and nobody should have to.
Nobody said you had to love it.
And as for trying to forget my expectations, well, I tried hard beforehand to
not have any expectations. I've found that most people who went into it with
an open mind like that were not disappointed.
Even if I had never seen
>Star Wars, I would never get the same response out of TPM as I did
>from SW.
Of course not. So why attack it for that?
>The soul of SW just isn't there. Aside from the opening
>crawl, it just isn't SW.
LOL, that's because the only thing that's just like the other SW movies is the
opening crawl. I'll tell you one way TPM is just like the other SW movies:
it's totally different from any movie that came before it. To me, that's a
good thing.
Rogan Gosh
>Here are my responses to the apologists. I'm a Led Zeppelin fan, and
>I find parallels here between TPM and the recent Page Plant album. A
>lot of expectations, bad reviews, and apologists coming out of the
>woodworks who fail to be objective about the failings of the new work.
....
[snip point one: i don't have much to say about what the critics thought. If
they liked it or they didn't that's their prerogative.]
>2) TPM will seem better after EPII and EPIII.
>
> A successful Star Wars film succeeds as a standalone. ANH
>certainly doesn't need the other two films. Empire needs an ending,
>but it does have its own internal flow. The characters have
>passion-play choices to make with dire consequences. ROJ has the
>resolution of this passion play in Vader killing the Emperor, etc...
>EP1 only advances the plot. It barely advances the characters. It
>could, perhaps, but nothing is ever expressed in the dialogue to
>indicate that the characters have changed significantly. That they
>change in II and III won't make I any better as an individual film.
You're contradicting yourself here. By that measure, the only successful one
of the lot is "Star Wars." You just said yourself that "Empire" needs an
ending and "Jedi" is the resolution of "Empire"... so how can one stand without
the other? If you'd only seen "Jedi" without "Empire" you really wouldn't know
what's going on, and if you watched "Empire" with no knowledge of "Jedi" you'd
be annoyed that it ends on a cliffhanger. The only reason "Star Wars" stands
as a complete story in its own right is because there was no guarantee a sequel
would be made. With "Phantom Menace," there is.
>3) It's all just unrealistically high expectations.
>
> The fact is that many could have made a better film other than
>Lucas.
Oh, definitely. Problem is that Lucas the writer is at odds with Lucas the
director--the writer can't pace the story well enough, meaning the movie stalls
somewhat in the middle, which makes the director look bad. Lucas would have
benefitted immensely from having a co-writer work with him, and i hope he gets
some help for the next two movies. Lucas has no business writing dialogue;
Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan's lines are serviceable, but Jar-Jar and Anakin had a lot
of stuff that made me cringe.
>Nobody has
>anything that profound to say.
True, but don't fool yourself: this is "Star Wars," not Dostoevsky. You have
to be objective about the first trilogy too, here, and objectively nobody said
anything in those movies that was profound so much as quaint. You can't
seriously be suggesting that those Force platitudes of Obi-Wan or Yoda are
"profound," are you?
>Where this film should have been more
>mystical but still safely "generic" in its religion, Lucas goes in two
>wrong directions at once, destroying the religion with a biological
>explanation for the force, and
>raising the Christ-spectre with virgin
>birth.
I really liked Lucas' explanation for the Force.
It didn't destroy it so much in my eyes as expand on it in a way that made
sense. How do little cell components in all living things that act as antennae
for the Force ruin the concept? I might be wrong, but the midichlorians don't
so much generate the Force as much as help channel it, don't they? It made
sense to me, and it explains why Luke had a natural affinity for the Force and
Han Solo, for example, didn't--it's an inherited trait. Doesn't mean that
someone can't learn how to use the Force if they don't have a high midichlorian
count, same as i could learn how to paint well, or play the piano--i may not
become as good at it as someone who has a natural gift for it, but i can still
learn how to do it. Same with the Force.
>We don't really learn that much about how Jedi are trained.
>We don't see any other Jedi in training at Coruscant, or get any more
>of the atmosphere than purely a superficial level.
We saw Yoda train Luke in "Empire," so it would have been redundant in
"Phantom."
>The whole movie is
>just plopped into our lap on a superficial level. If it looks
>authentic, it is supposed to seem to have depth and weight, but it
>doesn't.
If what looks authentic? I don't know what you're referring to here.
>Lucas himself said that the new trilogy would be darker and
>more adult, but we have gotten a case of bait and switch.
In all fairness, he made the point in "Vanity Fair" that it wouldn't get too
sinister until II and III. Besides, Palpatine's political maneuvering was
nothing if not dark and adult, and that was the main thrust of the movie.
>The Phantom
>Menace at times plays like a bigger budget Ewok Adventure. The scenes
>with Anakin and his young friends, for instance, are of no interest to
>anyone older than 8. The conflict is
>light enough so that a 4 year
>old won't get disturbed by the danger to the main characters. Classic
>G-rated plotting. Nobody would have predicted a film this light and
>frivolous. Some of the aliens look as childlike as anything in A
>Bug's Life.
You seem to be fixating on certain sequences (such as the pod race) and
painting them as the entire movie, when it's really not. How much of the movie
involves Anakin's young friends?
Ten, fifteen minutes maybe? Having seen the first trilogy, we already know
that most of the characters aren't in any real danger--we know what their fates
are.
>The choice to have aliens speak in BASIC (english) without
>subtitles is a classic flaw. Perhaps Lucas felt it would be bad for
>his young demographic to have to read subtitles, but we're now seeing
>the main reason it HAD to be subtitles. Dubbed aliens speaking in
>their native language still suspends disbelief. Dubbed aliens
>speaking in goofy accents are mostly laughable. There are few
>examples in the existing trilogy where aliens were dubbed in english.
>And those that exist, the voices were okay (Ackbar for instance). At
>times I felt I was watching Battle
>Beyond the Stars or something!
>Lucas had nobody to take him aside and warn him about this stuff.
Most of the aliens seen in the movie are senators and diplomats, so it made
sense they would all speak a common universal language (which happens to be
English). It's the same in real world diplomatic situations. In any event, it
never made any sense to me in the first trilogy that all the human characters
happened to speak English while all the aliens had different languages. The
humans all came from different cultures and planets, didn't they? So it didn't
strike me as a big deal in "Phantom."
>Compare the saber duel to the one between
>Obi Wan and Vader. The big difference? DIALOGUE! Obi-Wan fighting
>Vader was the resolution of a long conflict. It reflected in the
>dialogue. Obi Wan sacrificed himself to save Luke. Vader revealed a
>lot about his character to Obi Wan in that scene. The fighting was
>not the point, it was a character scene. The fight in TPM, aside from
>"No", is completely without dialogue! Maul doesn't say "and now, I
>have had my revenge" and Qui doesn't say "where did you come from".
>It's just kill or be killed. Pointless action for the sake of action.
>It takes place in a background reminiscent of Empire, but we don't
>have any hands getting cut off, or any "join me" or any sort of
>character conflict or choice going on. It doesn't resonate on any
>emotional level. Even 2-bit action movies have their villain
>pontificate on how great evil is and how boring good is while they
>fight to the death. Why not TPM?
I partly agree with you here. I was disappointed that Maul was nothing more
than a glorified hitman, especially since he's been marketed as the breakout
character, but seeing that that was his role, there wasn't really much to say.
>4) It's just a movie:
>
>ANH transcends being just a movie. It always has to me, ever since I
>first saw it at age 7. It can still give me goosebumps if I'm in the
>right situation. Only a handful of movies in the history can have
>that timeless appeal. It's not just
>nostalgia. It hit on all
>cyllinders in 77 and it still does, even though I can spot the
>failings in the FX and acting more now than I used to.
Well, here's a lot of the difference between you and me. I really do look at
"Star Wars" as just a movie, albeit one i'm very fond of. But i don't feel
that it owes me anything.
[snip "ANH starts out with a blank slate...". Not much to debate here, since
it's an opinion.]
I definitely agree with the second notion--like i said, Lucas really isn't
equipped as a writer to do it all by himself.
Seems to me that you and a lot of people who are disappointed with "Phantom"
are disappointed because the movie you wanted (and had played out in your
minds) wasn't the movie you got. You kept writing, "We SHOULD have seen this
and this and this..." and were annoyed that it wasn't shown like you wanted.
I know you don't want to dislike the movie, but your opinion's no more valid
than someone who LOVED the movie, and in truth you're not being that objective
yourself.
A major part of the problem with all the hype surrounding "Phantom" is that
everyone's opinions are bound to be completely polarized--some people will love
every second of it because it's "Star Wars" and some people (like yourself)
will hate it because it wasn't the "Star Wars" that they wanted after fifteen
years. There's no in-between. So many people have deified the first three
movies to such an extent that nothing will live up to them.
Objectively? "The Phantom Menace" is a fun movie that's about a half-hour
longer than it ought to be; that spends much more time setting up the podrace
sequence than it should; that tends to pander to the kids a little too much
with more or less every one of Jar-Jar's pratfall scenes; that has a compelling
beginning and an exciting ending; that has dialogue that ranges from good to
cringeworthy; that has good performances from Neeson, McGregor, Portman, and
McDiarmid; and that has absolutely breathtaking visuals (with a tendency to
overemphasize them to the film's detriment).
Rogan Gosh
Brian Badger
ZapPowBam wrote:
> I love Star Wars. I worship The Empire Strikes Back. I kinda
> like Return of the Jedi, I guess. But believe me, it pains me to
> say that I hate The Phantom Menace.
>
> Thanks again, Glenn, for wonderfully articulating all of my own
> concerns about this tragic disappointment.
Wouldn't you then say, that it is somewhat unfair to characterize those of us
who do like TPM (very much, in fact) as "not being objective"? I am being
objective: in my opinion, some aspects of TPM were better than any of the
other SW films (special effects, quality of the backstory, primary
photography, choreography), and TPM at it's worst is no worse than the *ugh*
scenes from the other films. Give me 10 minutes of Jar Jar over 10 minutes
of Jawas any day. I am not being an "apologist". I don't need you to like
it. I liked it, and that's enough.
I still think ESB is the best film, taking everything into account (even with
the terrible photography and tiny tiny sets), but TPM was very very good.
--
Brian
ZapPowBam
>ZapPowBam wrote:
>
>> I love Star Wars. I worship The Empire Strikes Back. I kinda
>> like Return of the Jedi, I guess. But believe me, it pains me to
>> say that I hate The Phantom Menace.
>>
>> Thanks again, Glenn, for wonderfully articulating all of my own
>> concerns about this tragic disappointment.
>
>Wouldn't you then say, that it is somewhat unfair to characterize those
>of us who do like TPM (very much, in fact) as "not being objective"? I
>am being objective: in my opinion, some aspects of TPM were better than
>any of the other SW films (special effects, quality of the backstory,
>primary photography, choreography), and TPM at it's worst is no worse
>than the *ugh* scenes from the other films. Give me 10 minutes of Jar
>Jar over 10 minutes of Jawas any day.
Obviously, from my own personal perspective, comments like that last
one render your comments incompatible with my own -- and that's fine.
Remember, it's all perspective -- about looking at things "from a
certain point-of-view." When I cringe and grimace and my blood boils
over some of the things that *I* consider to be downright incompetent
or moronic in Episode I -- and you say that you *like* those things --
naturally, I'm going to consider your perspective to be completely off,
especially when it comes to something that I'm passionate about, like
Star Wars. So nothing is fair in love and war -- or opinion.
As for TPM defenders "not being objective," I can only look at those posts
that I've read which clearly say, "I don't care what anyone else thinks,
I loved TPM." See? The reviewer comes right out and says that they're
not being objective -- so, back to perspective -- that's all I've been
seeing from the pro-TPM posts that I've read. If you have something else
to offer, believe me, I'd love to hear it! :)
>I am not being an "apologist". I don't need you to like it. I liked it, and
>that's enough.
So then why even bother with this post? If you didn't care what others
thought of the film, or think about your opinion, then why it share it
with us?
>I still think ESB is the best film, taking everything into account (even
>with the terrible photography and tiny tiny sets), but TPM was very
>very good.
Well, again, when you call Peter Suschitzky's absolutely gorgeous
cinematography in The Empire Strikes Back "terrible," it becomes
difficult for me to take your comments seriously -- and WHAT tiny
tiny sets?
I honestly think that there is a significant portion of Star Wars fandom
that's living in serious denial right now -- and that may or may not
change over the next few days, months and years. I say that because it's what
I, as an individual, have observed. That's all. Nothing to get into a
stitch over.
donte...@aol.com
seat, I rolled my eyes...it was all I could do from getting up and
walking out of the theatre. But still, and I say this with complete
sincerity, that I wanted so badly to enjoy TPM...I hoped that it could
SOMEHOW be saved, or even turn out to be just "okay". But nothing. It was
poor, poor, poor, through and through. To think that one day I would ask
a theatre manager for a refund after seeing a Star Wars movie! A
nightmare! People that liked this movie, or worse, loved it, makes me
wonder what is consider entertainment these days. Any respectable film
critic shall devulge The Phantom Menace as the biggest dissapointment in
cinema history. -d
CiberLyon
My God, YOU should have written, produced, and directed this movie! Your
suggestions are PURE GENIUS!
Sheesh. I love it when people trash something Lucas does and then put forth
their own horid ideas about what should have been put in its place.
LoneIdiot
>1) Reviewers are giving bad reviews to TPM because they always give
>bad reviews to SW films:
>
Your rebuttal: These critics are a diffrent generation from those who blasted
the film,
My rebuttal: The Special Editions got bad reviews in the papers I read when
they were re-released. A New Hope was refered to as a "quaint little movie",
the reviewer said it dosen't stand up to most Sci-Fi out there now. The critic
said we'd be better off seeing "Beverly Hills Ninja". This same critic gave
Phantom Menace bad reviews saying it didn't hold a candle to the originals.
Hypocrites. >
>2) TPM will seem better after EPII and EPIII.
Your rebuttal: It should succed as a stand-alone film
My rebuttal: The first time I saw a New Hope I thought it was a decent film,
but nothing worth getting terribly excited over. When I saw The Empire Strikes
Back and Return Of The Jedi I feel in love with New Hope. Once I saw what a New
Hope was building too I forgave the flaws I found (uneven pacing, dull
lightsaber fight, Luke's whining) I saw what it was building too and liked it a
lot better. While the film succeds as a stand-alone, it is improved by a lot
once you know whats going on. Whether the Phantom Menace succeds as a
stand-alone film is your opinion, I thought it did, but it didn't need to. I
also liked it because I knew what it was building too. I know Palpatine will
become Emporer, Anakin will become Vader, the Jedi will be wiped out. This
knowledge helped me to enjoy the film more, but it also left me wanting more.
A lot of critics complained that Anakin didn't become Vader in this movie. I
wish the only complaint I had about most movies is I wanted to see more! >
>3) It's all just unrealistically high expectations.
Your rebuttal: Many people could have made better films than Lucas
My rebuttal: Many people could have made worse films than Lucas. As Monty
Python says, "aways look on the brighter side of life". They also say "Nobody
expects the Spanish Inquisition", but that's beside the point. I'd agree with
your statements some parts could have been better, but the fact it could have
been better dosen't make it bad.
You said 4 years olds wouldn't be scared by the dangers presented to the main
charactors. I'd disagree, Darth Maul is scary, and he kills main charactors.
When Obi-Won was behind the Force-Field (no pun intended) I felt his tension, I
felt scared for him. Maul is good old fashioned nightmare fuel.
>4) It's just a movie:
Your rebuttal: It's more than a movie.
My rebuttal: I concede that point to you.
Your conclusion: The Phantom Menace works better as a backstory than a story.
It didn't have as much as an epic feel.
My rebuttal: Lucas is still getting ready to show us the height of the Jedi's
power. I think once we see the Clone Wars we'll see powerful imagery of an army
of powerful Jedi Knights. If only my complaint about most movies is it left me
wanting more.
-The Lone Idiot
Shannon
>
>Here are my responses to the apologists.
By calling those of us who defend the film 'apologists' you make it
sound as though we are embarrassed about liking it, or are saying,
well yeah that kind of sucked but...which is not the case.
>Here is my response to that:
>
>1) Reviewers are giving bad reviews to TPM because they always give
>bad reviews to SW films:
I don't know what kind of reviews SW films usually get. It was a long
time ago, and I probably didn't read newspapers much at 6. :) I do,
however, think that sci fi films get generally worse reviews for the
mere fact that they are sci fi films.
>2) TPM will seem better after EPII and EPIII.
>
> A successful Star Wars film succeeds as a standalone. ANH
I think that TPM *does* succeed as a standalone. Obviously there are
major hints at things to come, but it has a plot (the attempted
takeover of a planet) and a resolution (the thwarting of that plot by
the heros). Return of the Jedi certainly doesn't stand alone.
Imagine someone who's never heard of Star Wars before watching that
movie. How much of it would make sense? No one would understand the
relationship between Han and Leia...they wouldn't know who Han was or
why he's stuck up on the wall in Jabba's Palace. They'd wonder who
the transparent guy lurking about in the swamp was, or who the little
green guy who disappears was and why he knew so much about Luke that
Luke didn't know...etc etc.
>EP1 only advances the plot. It barely advances the characters. It
>could, perhaps, but nothing is ever expressed in the dialogue to
>indicate that the characters have changed significantly. That they
>change in II and III won't make I any better as an individual film.
>
The thing about TPM is that it's not advancing the plot or the
characters, it is *introducing* them. Their ride has only just begun.
And I think that while no, no one underwent any drastic changes,
signifigant revelations were made regarding the characters and who
they were. Amidala is a courageous, no nonsense young woman with
little in the way of egotism or arrogance. Qui-Gon Jinn is a wise
Jedi, at peace with himself, so much so that he follows his own
instincts even when they clash with those above him in station.
Obi-Wan is young, slightly brash, and not fully in control of his
emotions yet, as his Master is. He has a long way to go before he
will be the Obi-Wan we all met in ANH. And Anakin is simply a child,
with a good heart and an enormous gift. His transformation, as we all
know, is bound to be terrifying. We know enough about these for the
situation they are in now. We also know enough about the events to
come to be able to see the wrong turns they make, and that creates
it's own drama. There's no need for signifigant changes in this
installment, although I do think there are changes in them that will
be major factors in their behavior in the films to come.
>3) It's all just unrealistically high expectations.
>The fact is that many could have made a better film other than
>Lucas. The Jedi council was nothing but an animated background when
>it could have been presented as a vital, lively Knights of the
>Roundtable.
Well that is just personal nitpicking, really. I personally thought
it was to demonstrate the complacency that has suffused the Council.
Perhaps if they had taken on Anakin and trained him as they did the
other Jedi apprentices, he wouldn't have turned to the Dark Side.
They left him to one who was barely past being an apprentice himself.
I think that they weren't supposed to be vital and lively.
> Yoda has barely anything of note to say. Nobody has
>anything that profound to say.
Yoda warned of Anakin's potential danger. That was signifigant. I'm
not sure what you wanted when you say profound.
> Where this film should have been more
>mystical but still safely "generic" in its religion, Lucas goes in two
>wrong directions at once, destroying the religion with a biological
>explanation for the force, and raising the Christ-spectre with virgin
>birth.
I personally didn't like the virgin birth thing either. But if you
notice, no one ever says that the midi thingies are The Force
themselves. They say that they are what makes the harnessing of it
possible, or at least, easier. The Force itself is still the same old
mystical thing it always was.
> We don't really learn that much about how Jedi are trained.
>We don't see any other Jedi in training at Coruscant, or get any more
>of the atmosphere than purely a superficial level. The whole movie is
>just plopped into our lap on a superficial level. If it looks
>authentic, it is supposed to seem to have depth and weight, but it
>doesn't.
Well he could only really stuff so much into one film. Besides,
Anakin initially was not to be trained. What were they supposed to
do, have Qui-Gon take Anakin down to wherever they train them and say,
"look, this is what you'd be doing if they'd let you, but they won't
so let's go." There's no reason for the training methods to be delved
into. There's also no real reason to dig deeply into the atmosphere
of Coruscant than what can be taken from the unrelenting cityscape and
the swarming of countless ships through the air. It's rush hour on
the freeway. :)
> Lucas himself said that the new trilogy would be darker and
>more adult, but we have gotten a case of bait and switch. The Phantom
>Menace at times plays like a bigger budget Ewok Adventure. The scenes
>with Anakin and his young friends, for instance, are of no interest to
>anyone older than 8.
Maybe not but there's only one scene. His friends are shown watching
the race, but that's really not particularly relevant to anything, and
I can't imagine that the total of maybe 4 minutes out of the entire
film that show his friends really was that much of a problem for
anyone.
> The conflict is light enough so that a 4 year
>old won't get disturbed by the danger to the main characters. Classic
>G-rated plotting. Nobody would have predicted a film this light and
>frivolous. Some of the aliens look as childlike as anything in A
>Bug's Life.
This is just a difference of opinions, I suppose, because I thought
the battle scenes were very well done. The battle droids massing and
marching towards the Gungans was very impressive, and spooky. Never
mind that they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Bad guys in
movies can never shoot until the moment that it will cause dramatic
impact. Watch any movie, you'll see. Hobbling around with injuries
or getting shot dead in the first seconds of a fight, which is more
realistic, would prove very inconvenient for a filmmaker unless it's
the end of the movie and they need something to heighten drama.
Stormtroopers and battle droids are no exception to this rather common
phenomenon.
> The choice to have aliens speak in BASIC (english) without
>subtitles is a classic flaw. Perhaps Lucas felt it would be bad for
>his young demographic to have to read subtitles, but we're now seeing
>the main reason it HAD to be subtitles. Dubbed aliens speaking in
>their native language still suspends disbelief. Dubbed aliens
>speaking in goofy accents are mostly laughable. There are few
>examples in the existing trilogy where aliens were dubbed in english.
>And those that exist, the voices were okay (Ackbar for instance). At
>times I felt I was watching Battle Beyond the Stars or something!
>Lucas had nobody to take him aside and warn him about this stuff.
Again, I think this is mostly a difference of opinion. I don't think
people are really going to care too much about this.
>Obi Wan and Vader. The big difference? DIALOGUE! Obi-Wan fighting
>Vader was the resolution of a long conflict. It reflected in the
>dialogue. Obi Wan sacrificed himself to save Luke. Vader revealed a
>lot about his character to Obi Wan in that scene. The fighting was
>not the point, it was a character scene. The fight in TPM, aside from
>"No", is completely without dialogue! Maul doesn't say "and now, I
>have had my revenge" and Qui doesn't say "where did you come from".
Well that is sort of the point. What are they going to say to each
other that is going to make anyting any clearer to the audience?
Qui-Gon could have asked him who he was, but Maul probably wouldn't
have told him. At this stage, the Sith obviously aren't quite ready
to make their new threat known. Dialogue was unnecessary. With Vader
and Kenobi in ANH, it was necessary to develop the relationship
between the two. They had a background, a history together. To not
speak would have been silly. That wasn't the case with this one.
>It's just kill or be killed. Pointless action for the sake of action.
>It takes place in a background reminiscent of Empire, but we don't
>have any hands getting cut off, or any "join me" or any sort of
>character conflict or choice going on. It doesn't resonate on any
>emotional level. Even 2-bit action movies have their villain
Oh but it does, if you think about it. Jinn and Kenobi dno't know why
this man is threatening them. Sure, they could have asked him but
then we'd just get one of those silly devices used in other movies,
where the villain lays out his whole plan to the hero before he tries
to kill the hero, who inevitably gets away and wins because of what
the villain told him. In the other fights you mentioned, that
dialogue is necessary because of the relationships of the characters.
And I disagree about character conflict. Did you not see the struggle
in Obi-Wan, the anger that he gave in to? There's character
development for you...as I said above, he's got a long way to go
before he's "old Ben."
>pontificate on how great evil is and how boring good is while they
>fight to the death. Why not TPM?
Because it's pointless and boring. It certainly wouldn't have rattled
Qui-Gon Jinn, and would only have made Darth Maul look silly.
>The only expectation we can have is that it at least follows
>the successful formula of the existing trilogy, and as far as
>character, plot, and in some cases design, it does not.
Would you rather it be just like those movies? I wouldn't. This is
just another matter of taste, not good or bad filmmaking.
>ANH starts out with a blank slate, and like a fine symphony it builds
>to the perfect climax of the death star. Like The Lord of the Rings,
>it plucks an isolated character who knows nothing about the world
>around him out of his element and thrusts him into a world where he is
>important. We identify with his naivete and we learn with him and
>enjoy his successes as if they were our own. The force isn't just a
>known aspect of the world the film lives in, it is something we are
>expected to believe in to the point where when Luke retracts the
>targeting computer, he is taking that leap of faith.
>
>In TPM it's just a snot-nosed kid narrating himself as he clumsily
>works his way into the hangar and blows up the control ship. His
>acheivement means little other than to illustrate how lucky he may be.
>Fate in ANH was tempered with moral choices. TPM has little to none.
I think this is a VITAL point of the movie. Ask yourself this
question: Given what we know about Anakin, would he have turned off
that targeting computer and relied on his instincts to make that shot?
"Fate in ANH was tempered with moral choices" True. But Anakin is
not Luke. Anakin has grown up being *owned* by another creature.
Would he be capable of making that leap of faith? I don't think so,
and I think that's one of the flaws in him that allows his turn later
in life. Many have snickered at Anakin resolving to stay in the
cockpit when Qui-Gon told him to. "Oh, I KNEW what would happen
then." True, but would Luke have done that? Don't you think Luke
would have grabbed a blaster and tagged along? Luke is naive, Anakin
is not. Anakin, in his life, could not afford to behave the way Luke
did. It's a vital difference in the two that has a lot to do with the
events to come.
>And that is HEARTBREAKING to the die hard fans. It detracts from the
>existing trilogy. When Obi Wan says "I haven't been called Obi Wan
>for a long time" we now have images of TPM clouding our imaginations.
I think of Obi-Wan, pleading with his Master not to defy the council
again, to which Qui-Gon merely looks at him with a perfect calm,
saying, "I will do what I must, Obi-Wan."
>We can never imagine the grand knights of the old the way they should
>have been.
I have to wonder what you think they *should* have been. I think that
this is just a case of it not being what *you* thought it should be,
and therefore not right.
> We can only imagine the all too routine Jedi council in
>TPM. Even worse, we'll have flashbacks to Jar Jar walking in dog shit
>or the two-headed announcer doing a schtick or the pillsbury dough boy
>alien (like that green old guy who pops up occasionally in The
>Simpsons) having trouble with his pod racer.
I'm sorry that this is all you can think of. Those are all mere
sideshows to the real story. I have a feeling that, in 7 years or so,
when I watch all the movies in sequence, and it gets to the part where
Ben says "That's a name I haven't heard in a long time," it will NOT
be Jar Jar Binks I think of...it will be him making a fateful promise
to the dying Qui-Gon Jinn, and other things we've yet to see, as he
will surely have a much larger role in the next two films.
>CONCLUSION:
>
> Tolkien thought about making a sequel to The Lord of the
>Rings. He didn't because he knew that the 3rd age was the dramatic
>center of Middle-Earth. Instead he presented the back-story, but not
>in a novelistic style. In a way, that disappointed fans, but he never
>tried to make The Silmarillion as accessible as a real novel. It was
>just supposed to emulate a bunch of old books, like the Bible or
>something. A collection of short-stories and fables.
I really wish you'd stop bringing up Tolkien. :P
> In the existing trilogy, I fear that the backstory works
>better as backstory than as a series of movies. Better alluded to
>than presented in full. However, if you were to present it, it
>deserves a lot more care than what TPM got.
I thought the story is extremely well presented. I think I've already
explained many of my reasons why.
>If the old republic was a
>golden age, then you have to express that in more powerful ways. Let
It WAS a golden age. It's clearly in a state of decline at the time
of TPM.
>Play up the heroism, the super-human qualities of the jedi. Don't
I thought they did this quite well with the fight scenes involving
Neeson and MacGregor.
> Lucas just doesn't care.
I think that is clearly not the case. Again, I've gone over many of
the reasons why above.
> I fear that Lucas feels that the best way to make his world
>seem alive is by turning it into an orgy of computer generated
>imagery. Unfortunately, this has the same effect as Ralph Bakshi used
>(intentionally) in Cool World but with Cell animation. It distracts
>the eye. But with a plot this thin, that's probably a good thing.
>
> In that sense, you could call TPM "Star Wars: Visual Graffiti"
>
> I hate having to render such an opinion, and I'm sure the
>mindless defenders will continue, but you must be objective. Every
I resent being called mindless. If you want objectivity, have a
little more care in the casual insults you throw around. This is only
going to get you pissed off responses.
>reviewer is criticizing the film on the same valid points. Eventually
>even the most die-hard fan must come out of the clouds and judge TPM,
>and he will realize that all the criticism heaped upon it has been
>truly fair.
Would you PLEASE stop proclaiming your opinion as the only possible
conclusion? Do you even realize how infuriating that is? The critics
are all harping on the same points, but the defenders are praising the
same points that the critics are moaning about, for the most part.
Just suck it up and admit that your opinion IS NOT GOSPEL.
> I really doubt anyone who has fooled themselves into loving
>TPM can say they love it for reasons they WANTED to love it for when
I'm so glad you are presuming to think for me. I expected good
characters. I got that. I expected dazzling effects. Got that. I
expected a complex story, with hints of the darkness that is about to
fall. Got that. I expected brilliantly staged Jedi battles. Got
that. I expected fast paced and exciting action sequences. Got that.
>anticipating it. You just love what the movie delivers on, and have
>tried to forget whatever expectations you had.
Oh is that what I did? Thank you for telling me, I didn't realize. :P
> Well, most people
>can't do that, and nobody should have to. Even if I had never seen
No, no one should have to, and I didn't. I'd venture a guess that
most of the people who loved it didn't. Get off your damned high
horse, ok?
>Star Wars, I would never get the same response out of TPM as I did
>from SW. The soul of SW just isn't there. Aside from the opening
>crawl, it just isn't SW.
> The moral of the story is that I think either Lucas has
>changed for the worse (i.e. technophile, nothing more to say) or that
>people like Kirshner and Kasdan had more to do with making SW work
>than anyone would like to admit. It's probably a little of both.
The moral of the story is that you are letting little things that
annoy , like Jar Jar Binks, and the fact that George Lucas didn't read
your mind and make everything exactly the way you envisioned it bscure
the true depth of the story in TPM. For that I can only feel sorry
for you.
Shannon
"There's always a bigger fish."--Qui-Gon Jinn
ZapPowBam
>Ah, yes, corny dialogue would definitely have made these scenes MUCH better.
>My God, YOU should have written, produced, and directed this movie! Your
>suggestions are PURE GENIUS!
>
>Sheesh. I love it when people trash something Lucas does and then put forth
>their own horid ideas about what should have been put in its place.
>
>> The fight in TPM, aside from
>>"No", is completely without dialogue! Maul doesn't say "and now, I
>>have had my revenge" and Qui doesn't say "where did you come from".
>>It's just kill or be killed. Pointless action for the sake of action.
I think Glenn's idea is better than Lucas' -- or yours for that matter,
not that you have one. Glenn wasn't writing direct dialogue, which
you think is "corny" -- he was trying to convey that one of the
most effective elements of the PAST lightsaber battles has been the
verbal dueling as well as the physical dueling. In The Empire Strikes
Back, Vader's most powerful blow doesn't come when he chops Luke's
hand off...it's when he reveals that he is Luke's father. The Qui-Gon/
Obi-Wan/Darth Maul duel had no such emotional weight to it -- and that
is obviously Glenn's point. "Sheesh" is right.
mdb
>>2) TPM will seem better after EPII and EPIII.
>>
>> A successful Star Wars film succeeds as a standalone. ANH
>
>I think that TPM *does* succeed as a standalone. Obviously there are
>major hints at things to come, but it has a plot (the attempted
>takeover of a planet) and a resolution (the thwarting of that plot by
>the heros).
The reason TPM has trouble standing on its own (imo it does but only
barely) is that the conflict between good and bad isn't sharply
defined. Imagine if there were no sequels. Obi Wan's move from
apprentice to Knight is arbitary. JarJar doesn't really earn or live
up to his promotion from clutz to general. Anakin at the end of the
film is the same character as he was at the beginning.
If TESB was to be a stand alone movie, the only real changes needed
would be for Luke to defeat Vader and Leia and Lando rescuing Han
instead of having him escape.
>Return of the Jedi certainly doesn't stand alone.
And many don't think RotJ is that successful as a Star Wars film.
>The thing about TPM is that it's not advancing the plot or the
>characters, it is *introducing* them.
The only thing is that it would have been so easy to advance the plot
and characters while introducing them. What's the point of being
introduced without getting to know them?
>>3) It's all just unrealistically high expectations.
>
>>The fact is that many could have made a better film other than
>>Lucas.
I'd just like to say here, there aren't 5 people in the world who
would have made a better film if left to themselves. It's just that
many people could have improved on what Lucas did.
>>Obi Wan and Vader. The big difference? DIALOGUE! Obi-Wan fighting
>>Vader was the resolution of a long conflict. It reflected in the
>>dialogue. Obi Wan sacrificed himself to save Luke. Vader revealed a
>>lot about his character to Obi Wan in that scene. The fighting was
>>not the point, it was a character scene. The fight in TPM, aside from
>>"No", is completely without dialogue! Maul doesn't say "and now, I
>>have had my revenge" and Qui doesn't say "where did you come from".
>
>Well that is sort of the point. What are they going to say to each
>other that is going to make anyting any clearer to the audience?
>Qui-Gon could have asked him who he was, but Maul probably wouldn't
>have told him. At this stage, the Sith obviously aren't quite ready
>to make their new threat known.
Well it's real unfortunate for Maul who was so keen on finally
revealing themselves to the Jedi. In truth, Maul being there is
exactly making their new threat known.
>Dialogue was unnecessary. With Vader
>and Kenobi in ANH, it was necessary to develop the relationship
>between the two. They had a background, a history together. To not
>speak would have been silly. That wasn't the case with this one.
But it is. This was the start of the Sith vs. Jedi wars that will
lead to the extermination of the Jedi. This fight had a history that
goes back over 1000 years!
I think you could hold off the dialogue until after Qui Gon is killed,
I love the contrast of the silent pacing vs. the silent meditation,
but I think when Obi Wan was waiting to get at Maul after Qui Gon was
down, there was a perfect opportunity for an exchange of 2 or 3 lines,
and I think when Maul was standing over Obi Wan there was a perfect
opportunity for Maul to deliver a line or two about the Sith v. Jedi
history. It's a tradition for the bad guy to give speeches when they
think the hero is doomed, but the is the first time I think the
villian just stood there waiting to be overthrown.
>the villain told him. In the other fights you mentioned, that
>dialogue is necessary because of the relationships of the characters.
Well there is also the thought that if Maul had done more for the
story before the fight then they could go without words at the end.
>And I disagree about character conflict. Did you not see the struggle
>in Obi-Wan, the anger that he gave in to?
The anger is present only because we have become so sensitive to the
issue because of RotJ. For the same reason, everyone assumes Qui Gon
was meditating to stay calm instead of what it was really meant to be,
Qui Gon trying to get his breath back.
>>pontificate on how great evil is and how boring good is while they
>>fight to the death. Why not TPM?
>
>Because it's pointless and boring. It certainly wouldn't have rattled
>Qui-Gon Jinn, and would only have made Darth Maul look silly.
You know, if the ANH duel had been silent and someone came in and
tried to suggest lines like "Your powers are weak old man" "Only a
master of evil" etc. everyone would say it was corny dialogue that
makes Vader sound silly.
When I grow up, I wanna be a Tusken Raider.
mdb
Same time next week?
Win Sabres Win
JALefkowit
I'm not going to reply in detail to the original post (others have done that at
length already). Instead, I just wanted to point out one thing in it that got
a little rise out of me.
I love it when people say "TPM should have had... [insert scene here]." That's
rich! Like it or not, George Lucas is just about the only director working on
motion pictures of this scale who has total creative control of his work. He
funds it, he writes it, he shoots it, he edits it, he distributes it. TPM is,
for better or worse, completely a product of one man's vision -- a real rarity
in the film industry.
In some cases this is a good thing (art direction, for example -- Lucas has a
very fertile visual imagination) and in other cases it isn't (the screenplay,
for example -- Lucas' writing is stilted and flat). But for better or worse,
Lucas is the auteur behind "Star Wars" and the ONLY person who decides what
should or should not be in it.
That's important because the only person who can say what TPM, or Episode II,
or Episode III, SHOULD have is -- George Lucas. We can say what we'd LIKE to
see, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD have been in there. In fact, one could
make the argument that if it had been extensively focus-grouped, it wouldn't be
"Star Wars" anymore, since it would have lacked Lucas' driving vision.
On top of that, most of the "SHOULD have been" scenes that are tossed out on
this NG fall into the general category of Fanboy Film -- the sorts of things
that only fanboys think should be in the movie. Like an entire sequence
involving nothing but the Jedi Council kicking ass, because it would be kEWL!
Never mind that the movie's already too long and such a sequence would do
nothing to advance the plot.
TPM faces a lot of criticism solely based on the fact that for 16 years people
have been shooting this film in their minds. Every Star Wars fan has got his
own private "Episode I" floating around in his head. OK, So "TPM" didn't match
yours, fine. You know what -- it didn't match mine either. But criticize or
praise it based on what's THERE, rather than what's NOT, except in a few
overheated imaginations.
My US$0.02...
Jason Lefkowitz
remove NOSPAM from email address to reply
"A statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows, we need more statesmen." (Bloom
County)
DailyRich
>most effective elements of the PAST lightsaber battles has been the
>verbal dueling as well as the physical dueling.
But that works because the characters had a past with each other, Ben with
Vader and Vader with Luke. Maul, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon don't have that kind of
relationship. And personally, I think Maul's silent glare is ten times more
menacing than anything Lucas could have come up with for him to say. It's
ironic that people complain about Lucas' stilted dialog, then complain that he
should have written more...
DailyRich
"The pee tube is out of alignment."
DailyRich
allowed for no facial expression to convey emotion. Maul doesn't have that
problem, and so can convey things visually.
Nialla
Saunders) wrote:
>And that is HEARTBREAKING to the die hard fans.
No, it's heartbreaking to YOU. I'm a die hard fan, and I enjoyed the
movie. I didn't go into it expecting the be all, end all of movie
going experiences. I went in expecting to see a fun movie, but not a
vision of perfection. I did. Twice.
Was it weak in some points? Sure. But no matter what had been put on
the screen, someone would have had something to bitch about. It's the
nature of the beast. There were certain things I was disappointed
about not seeing, but that was my vision, not Lucas'. Unless I've got
the cash to front Ep 2, it's going to stay that way too. And I don't
have a problem with that.
The movie was fun, but by no means perfect in every detail. To stay
away from the original trilogy comparisons... In the Mummy, didn't
*everyone* know that the pyramids in ancient times were coated with
white limestone bricks? The movie showed them as sand colored, which
just blew the whole movie for me. Hang on a sec, let me get my tongue
out of my cheek. : )
I'm not apologizing for liking the movie, no more than anyone should
have to apologize for *not* liking it. You either do or don't, and
there's nothing anyone can do or say to change your mind.
Enjoy the film, or don't, and no apologies either way. Just don't
assume your opinion is the only one representing either side of the
issue. As you can tell from reading the ng, it's not.
~N
Shannon
>>>2) TPM will seem better after EPII and EPIII.
>>>
>>> A successful Star Wars film succeeds as a standalone. ANH
>>
>>I think that TPM *does* succeed as a standalone. Obviously there are
>>major hints at things to come, but it has a plot (the attempted
>>takeover of a planet) and a resolution (the thwarting of that plot by
>>the heros).
>
>The reason TPM has trouble standing on its own (imo it does but only
>barely) is that the conflict between good and bad isn't sharply
>defined. Imagine if there were no sequels. Obi Wan's move from
>apprentice to Knight is arbitary. JarJar doesn't really earn or live
>up to his promotion from clutz to general. Anakin at the end of the
>film is the same character as he was at the beginning.
Well if there were no sequels I think it would have been a very
different movie. The same could be said for any of the movies other
than ANH. Good and bad isn't sharply defined because it's not out in
the open yet. We know who the good guys and bad guys are but the
characters don't yet. The whole point of making this trilogy at all
is that there are sequels, and we can see the progression and the
seeds planted of what is to come. I think this one works as a stand
alone much better than any other, with the exception of ANH.
>If TESB was to be a stand alone movie, the only real changes needed
>would be for Luke to defeat Vader and Leia and Lando rescuing Han
>instead of having him escape.
Not really...most of what goes on depends on our understanding of the
relationships established in ANH. Then you've got Ben flitting around
as a ghost which would have made no sense. Sure changes could have
been made to it to make it better as a stand alone film, but the same
could be said for The Phantom Menace, so I don't really see the
argument here.
>
>>Return of the Jedi certainly doesn't stand alone.
>
>And many don't think RotJ is that successful as a Star Wars film.
Well I liked it. :)
>>The thing about TPM is that it's not advancing the plot or the
>>characters, it is *introducing* them.
>
>The only thing is that it would have been so easy to advance the plot
>and characters while introducing them. What's the point of being
>introduced without getting to know them?
I feel like we did get to know them a bit. It was all done much more
subtly than in previous movies, but it was still there.
>>Well that is sort of the point. What are they going to say to each
>>other that is going to make anyting any clearer to the audience?
>>Qui-Gon could have asked him who he was, but Maul probably wouldn't
>>have told him. At this stage, the Sith obviously aren't quite ready
>>to make their new threat known.
>
>Well it's real unfortunate for Maul who was so keen on finally
>revealing themselves to the Jedi. In truth, Maul being there is
>exactly making their new threat known.
Ok, let me rephrase that. :) It is making the threat known, but he's
not going to go into a big explanation of their plans.
>>Dialogue was unnecessary. With Vader
>>and Kenobi in ANH, it was necessary to develop the relationship
>>between the two. They had a background, a history together. To not
>>speak would have been silly. That wasn't the case with this one.
>
>But it is. This was the start of the Sith vs. Jedi wars that will
>lead to the extermination of the Jedi. This fight had a history that
>goes back over 1000 years!
I'm talking personal history though.
>I think you could hold off the dialogue until after Qui Gon is killed,
>I love the contrast of the silent pacing vs. the silent meditation,
>but I think when Obi Wan was waiting to get at Maul after Qui Gon was
>down, there was a perfect opportunity for an exchange of 2 or 3 lines,
>and I think when Maul was standing over Obi Wan there was a perfect
>opportunity for Maul to deliver a line or two about the Sith v. Jedi
>history. It's a tradition for the bad guy to give speeches when they
>think the hero is doomed, but the is the first time I think the
>villian just stood there waiting to be overthrown.
It's a tradition I've always hated though. It just seems so silly.
But really, I can see the arguments for and against dialogue.
Personaly I like it better without, but it's not something that I feel
so strongly about that I'm going to keep arguing the point. :)
>>the villain told him. In the other fights you mentioned, that
>>dialogue is necessary because of the relationships of the characters.
>
>Well there is also the thought that if Maul had done more for the
>story before the fight then they could go without words at the end.
I do think Maul was woefully underused, given the hype that surrounds
him. Of course I also think he might be back.
>>And I disagree about character conflict. Did you not see the struggle
>>in Obi-Wan, the anger that he gave in to?
>
>The anger is present only because we have become so sensitive to the
>issue because of RotJ. For the same reason, everyone assumes Qui Gon
>was meditating to stay calm instead of what it was really meant to be,
>Qui Gon trying to get his breath back.
Sensitive to the issue because of RotJ? I thought it was pretty
clear, the emotions he was experiencing. I'm not sure I know what you
are referring to. And there's really no indication of Qui-Gon being
overly tired in the movie. Unless you read the book, which the
majority of people who see the movie probably won't, then you're not
going to think, 'oh he must be catching his breath.'
>>>pontificate on how great evil is and how boring good is while they
>>>fight to the death. Why not TPM?
>>
>>Because it's pointless and boring. It certainly wouldn't have rattled
>>Qui-Gon Jinn, and would only have made Darth Maul look silly.
>
>You know, if the ANH duel had been silent and someone came in and
>tried to suggest lines like "Your powers are weak old man" "Only a
>master of evil" etc. everyone would say it was corny dialogue that
>makes Vader sound silly.
Actually I think I would have been a little disappointed had the duel
between Vader and Obi-Wan been silent, because the fact that they had
a personal long history together was established early on. Again, the
dialogue issue between Maul and the two Jedi aren't something I really
feel strongly enough about to keep arguing, even though I still think
he'd have sounded a little silly if he'd started spewing about
revenge. I don't think it would have detracted much from the scene but
I certainly don't think it would have added anything either.
mdb
>I think this one works as a stand
>alone much better than any other, with the exception of ANH.
I think it could have been.
TPM islike a rollercoaster, a hell of a ride but you wind up right
where you started.
>>If TESB was to be a stand alone movie, the only real changes needed
>>would be for Luke to defeat Vader and Leia and Lando rescuing Han
>>instead of having him escape.
>
>Not really...most of what goes on depends on our understanding of the
>relationships established in ANH. Then you've got Ben flitting around
>as a ghost which would have made no sense.
Well Ben wouldn't be dead if TESB was a standalone.
>Sure changes could have
>been made to it to make it better as a stand alone film, but the same
>could be said for The Phantom Menace, so I don't really see the
>argument here.
The argument is that nothing in Ep II and III will make Obi Wan less
wasted in the first 3/4s of TPM or make the Ani/Amidala relationship
any more realistic (Though I fully expect the TPM:SE to put back in
the scene where Ani tells her about the dream where they were married
so that might help) or JarJar any less annoying or the battle droids
any less foppish or the Trade Fed guys any better characters.
And then there is the midichlorians and the vergence of the force.
>>>Return of the Jedi certainly doesn't stand alone.
>>
>>And many don't think RotJ is that successful as a Star Wars film.
>
>Well I liked it. :)
I think most people like it; problem is they don't love it the way
they found something to love in ANH and TESB.
>>The only thing is that it would have been so easy to advance the plot
>>and characters while introducing them. What's the point of being
>>introduced without getting to know them?
>
>I feel like we did get to know them a bit. It was all done much more
>subtly than in previous movies, but it was still there.
There are traces and hints sure, and even more so because we know
their futures. But most of TPM characters are like Han Solo in RotJ,
flat, linear, though still charismatic.
>>Well it's real unfortunate for Maul who was so keen on finally
>>revealing themselves to the Jedi. In truth, Maul being there is
>>exactly making their new threat known.
>
>Ok, let me rephrase that. :) It is making the threat known, but he's
>not going to go into a big explanation of their plans.
I tell you, if Maul had said as little as words to the effect of "The
reign of the Jedi is at an end" when standing over Obi Wan, well, then
I'd still think Lord Sidious Palpitine Emperor shouldn't have been in
the film except for the oine scene with Maul on Coruscant because it's
all such a dead give away and Maul should have done all the pawn
pushing with the Niomodians (sp, gee I'm going to have to get up to
speed on all these new words) but back to the point I'd do a lot less
complaining.if Maul had said just one bit. Heck, take away the "At
last we shall have our revenge" line from Coruscant and give it to him
in the scene with Obi Wan. [And another thing, if Maul'd been say
using the force to try to pry Obi Wan's fingers off the thing he was
holding instead of just standing there, I might even not complain
about him not saying anything at all in the duel.]
>>But it is. This was the start of the Sith vs. Jedi wars that will
>>lead to the extermination of the Jedi. This fight had a history that
>>goes back over 1000 years!
>
>I'm talking personal history though.
Obi Wan and Qui Gon's almost entire lives were about being a Jedi.
Presumably a good chunk of Darth Maul's life is about being a Sith.
It is personal history.
>>>And I disagree about character conflict. Did you not see the struggle
>>>in Obi-Wan, the anger that he gave in to?
>>
>>The anger is present only because we have become so sensitive to the
>>issue because of RotJ. For the same reason, everyone assumes Qui Gon
>>was meditating to stay calm instead of what it was really meant to be,
>>Qui Gon trying to get his breath back.
>
>Sensitive to the issue because of RotJ? I thought it was pretty
>clear, the emotions he was experiencing.
You think Qui Gon was feeling intense anger and the pull of the dark
side?
> I'm not sure I know what you
>are referring to. And there's really no indication of Qui-Gon being
>overly tired in the movie. Unless you read the book, which the
>majority of people who see the movie probably won't, then you're not
>going to think, 'oh he must be catching his breath.'
Well he sure was breathing hard after the Tatooine duel.
>feel strongly enough about to keep arguing, even though I still think
>he'd have sounded a little silly if he'd started spewing about
>revenge. I don't think it would have detracted much from the scene but
>I certainly don't think it would have added anything either.
First, there's a difference between spewing and delivering a few good
concise lines.
And twenty years later people still get a kick out of quoting
everything from You should not have come back to I am your father to
So be it, Jedi. There's like 4 or 5 lines from each of the first 3,
this one only gave us, We'll take of this. Right now the TPM duel is
outstanding, but 5 or 10 years from now, after the fight
choreographers of other films start trying to out do this duel, it
won't seem as outstanding.
mdb
>That's important because the only person who can say what TPM, or Episode II,
>or Episode III, SHOULD have is -- George Lucas. We can say what we'd LIKE to
>see, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD have been in there.
Nope. Lucas is not infallible. And there is a difference between
things that SHOULD have been done differently and things people'd have
LIKED to be different. For example I would have LIKED Jar Jar to be a
much different character but Jar Jar SHOULD have some other accent
than the Jamacian thing.
>TPM faces a lot of criticism solely based on the fact that for 16 years people
>have been shooting this film in their minds. Every Star Wars fan has got his
>own private "Episode I" floating around in his head.
Speaking for myself, I hadn't a single clue about how Episode I should
or would be be. If you'd given me a blank sheet of paper and a pen
I'd have blown my top like the "red R2" in ANH. But having seen what
Lucas came up with, there are many things that I can see that could
have been done better.
David Yeh
> Here are my responses to the apologists. I'm a Led Zeppelin fan, and
> I find parallels here between TPM and the recent Page Plant album. A
> lot of expectations, bad reviews, and apologists coming out of the
> woodworks who fail to be objective about the failings of the new work.
No one is objective about the failings of the originals, with the possible
exception of ROTJ (in fact, some of it's failing have become legendary and
worth a good chuckle). We're fans, who cares about objectivity? You
don't hear the Trekkies being objective about how much their movies stink,
they just have a good time with it because it is still a wonderfully
imaginative world, and the discussions and questions they evoke are just
as fascinating, if not moreso, than the films themselves. We're here to
have fun, not to write dissertations. It still beats the crap out of
any sci-fi adventure made before Star Wars, and since.
-dave
David Yeh
> I honestly think that there is a significant portion of Star Wars fandom
> that's living in serious denial right now -- and that may or may not
Don't be silly. There's a significant population out there who think
you're a kook for liking Star Wars of any kind, for so called "objective"
reasons, and I'm sure you don't appreciate such an accusation. Movies are
about evoking imagination, and if they did, it worked for me. TPM excited
me and stirred my imagination, but maybe my imagination is merely in
denial.
-dave
donte...@aol.com
> experience have an inferior concept of what "entertainment" is supposed to
> be....If this movie ranks as "biggest disappointment" for you, I have to ask,
> what
> were you expecting? ....But might your disappointment be fueled by unreasonable
> expectations?
Ok, I'll give you that. So yes, if you liked TPM and are over that age
of...hmm...let's say 12, I think you have an inferior concept of entertainment.
> We ought to know by now what GL is capable of and what he isn't.
> CCC
Oh but I do know what Lucas is capable of: Howard the Duck, Willow, and his
latest disaster and greatest disaster, The Phantom Menace....
The truth about TFM is that it was poor filmaking. And really, and I know I'll
still get flamed for this, but I've seen thousands of movies, I have knowledge of
filmaking, why films work, why they don't etc., and with all sincerity, for those
they say they liked TPM.....well, you guys can't possibly know what a truly good
film really is. Even if you "liked it", thought it "rocked", or found it
"entertaining"...people like shitty movies all the time. I know, "it's a matter of
perception", right? But there are people out there that think Titanic is the best
movie ever. Truthfully, it might be the best movie they've ever seen, but to say
it's a classic or one of the best movies ever is a fucking joke. And truthfully,
Titanic was nothing more than True Lies on a boat, a weak love story on the same
clothesline with some tacky cinematography, an even worse score, and oh, what
stale, stale performances!
People that liked TPM, you are too easily manipulated, "awed" by this computer
generated light show Lucas whored to his audience. For a movie that has been
rolling around in Lucas head for many years, yeah, I was expecting SOMETHING, like
a good Star Wars movie. But TPM was a full bellied flop. You Lucas worshipers
can't seem to get your head out of the sand, so busy analyzing details upon
details....interestingly, details which, in the end, did nothing to benefit the
final product of TPM as a movie. "The first of three" matters not. A bad movie is
a bad movie is a bad movie....
I've still yet to read a positive review which gives a sound critique of the
TPM based it's substance. -d
SpammersDie
<donte...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3748909F...@aol.com...
> > All I was
> > saying is that we can say what we would LIKE to see done differently,
but we
> > have no room to tell an artist that he SHOULD do something differently.
>
> Uh, but this piece of garbage you call "art" bears no signs of artistic
integrity.
> So it was for entertainment purposes only, right?
>Well, I was not entertained, and neither were many others.
And you know what? Nobody cares.
Shannon
>>
>>Not really...most of what goes on depends on our understanding of the
>>relationships established in ANH. Then you've got Ben flitting around
>>as a ghost which would have made no sense.
>
>Well Ben wouldn't be dead if TESB was a standalone.
You are completely avoiding the point of this part of the discussion.
The original poster cited as one of the TPM's flaws that the Star Wars
movies should work on their own, without the sequels. ESB, as it is,
with no changes, doesn't stand as well on it's own as the Phantom
Menace does. The only two films in the Star Wars series capable of
standing alone are TPM and ANH. We could certainly take each film,
rewrite parts of it, and put it back out as an individual movie that
works on it's own but that's not the point. You're agreeing with me
and you aren't even noticing it. :)
>
>>Sure changes could have
>>been made to it to make it better as a stand alone film, but the same
>>could be said for The Phantom Menace, so I don't really see the
>>argument here.
>
>The argument is that nothing in Ep II and III will make Obi Wan less
>wasted in the first 3/4s of TPM or make the Ani/Amidala relationship
>any more realistic (Though I fully expect the TPM:SE to put back in
>the scene where Ani tells her about the dream where they were married
>so that might help) or JarJar any less annoying or the battle droids
>any less foppish or the Trade Fed guys any better characters.
The whole point of this part of the conversation is that TPM, as it
is, whether you like it or not, can stand alone, without the context
of the sequels. Granted, it's much stronger with them, but it doesn't
necessarily need them. Those are all your problems with the movie and
have little to do with anything being discussed here.
>And then there is the midichlorians and the vergence of the force.
I'm reserving judgement on the midichlorian thing until I see what's
done with it later.
>>
>>Ok, let me rephrase that. :) It is making the threat known, but he's
>>not going to go into a big explanation of their plans.
>
>I tell you, if Maul had said as little as words to the effect of "The
>reign of the Jedi is at an end" when standing over Obi Wan, well, then
>I'd still think Lord Sidious Palpitine Emperor shouldn't have been in
>the film except for the oine scene with Maul on Coruscant because it's
>all such a dead give away and Maul should have done all the pawn
>pushing with the Niomodians (sp, gee I'm going to have to get up to
>speed on all these new words) but back to the point I'd do a lot less
>complaining.if Maul had said just one bit. Heck, take away the "At
>last we shall have our revenge" line from Coruscant and give it to him
>in the scene with Obi Wan. [And another thing, if Maul'd been say
>using the force to try to pry Obi Wan's fingers off the thing he was
>holding instead of just standing there, I might even not complain
>about him not saying anything at all in the duel.]
Well, like I've already stated, I don't feel as strongly about this as
some of you do. If he had said something like that I'm sure I
wouldn't have come out of the theater saying, "wow he really ruined
that scene by talking!" I still like it the way it was though.
>>>But it is. This was the start of the Sith vs. Jedi wars that will
>>>lead to the extermination of the Jedi. This fight had a history that
>>>goes back over 1000 years!
>>
>>I'm talking personal history though.
>
>Obi Wan and Qui Gon's almost entire lives were about being a Jedi.
>Presumably a good chunk of Darth Maul's life is about being a Sith.
>It is personal history.
No, that is Jedi history and Sith history. Personal history is when
you played softball together in junior high or something. The
conversation between Obi-Wan and Vader in ANH helped to establish
their personal interaction with each other in their past. All it
would have done in this would have been to provide some goofy
premature gloating by the bad guy.
>
>>>>And I disagree about character conflict. Did you not see the struggle
>>>>in Obi-Wan, the anger that he gave in to?
>>>
>>>The anger is present only because we have become so sensitive to the
>>>issue because of RotJ. For the same reason, everyone assumes Qui Gon
>>>was meditating to stay calm instead of what it was really meant to be,
>>>Qui Gon trying to get his breath back.
>>
>>Sensitive to the issue because of RotJ? I thought it was pretty
>>clear, the emotions he was experiencing.
>
>You think Qui Gon was feeling intense anger and the pull of the dark
>side?
No. I was talking about Obi-Wan. I said Obi-Wan, even, if you'd read
what I wrote.
>> I'm not sure I know what you
>>are referring to. And there's really no indication of Qui-Gon being
>>overly tired in the movie. Unless you read the book, which the
>>majority of people who see the movie probably won't, then you're not
>>going to think, 'oh he must be catching his breath.'
>
>Well he sure was breathing hard after the Tatooine duel.
Yes but that's not the battle I'd been talking about. I didn't see
any panting while he was behind that force field. I suspect you know
what I was talking about and are just being difficult.
>
>>feel strongly enough about to keep arguing, even though I still think
>>he'd have sounded a little silly if he'd started spewing about
>>revenge. I don't think it would have detracted much from the scene but
>>I certainly don't think it would have added anything either.
>
>First, there's a difference between spewing and delivering a few good
>concise lines.
>
>And twenty years later people still get a kick out of quoting
>everything from You should not have come back to I am your father to
>So be it, Jedi. There's like 4 or 5 lines from each of the first 3,
>this one only gave us, We'll take of this. Right now the TPM duel is
>outstanding, but 5 or 10 years from now, after the fight
>choreographers of other films start trying to out do this duel, it
>won't seem as outstanding.
I don't agree, but even if that's true I don't think a line or two
from Darth Maul would make that much of a difference. Him saying
something about the Sith or getting revenge on the Jedi would not
carry enough weight to make it stand out, because it's irrelevant.
The Jedi *know* that the Sith are their enemies. Saying so wouldn't
be a revelation.
Galactica2
>Nope. Lucas is not infallible.
Of course he's not. And neither are you...
>And there is a difference between
>things that SHOULD have been done differently and things people'd have
>LIKED to be different. For example I would have LIKED Jar Jar to be a
>much different character but Jar Jar SHOULD have some other accent
>than the Jamacian thing.
I fail to see the difference between your two opinions about Jar Jar. They are
both opinions with very little difference from one another (unless you are
using "should" in some politically correct way, implying that Jar Jar's
"accent" is offensive, which I disagree with - I thought Jar Jar was a positive
character, a good guy, so if you detect a Jamaican accent [and I don't], what's
the difference?). Either way, you're imposing your opinion as the be-all and
end-all of what's right, so you're automatically wrong. Lucas is not
infallible, but IMHO he's right far more often than he's wrong, so I'll take
his version of Star Wars over yours, thank you.
>Speaking for myself,
Finally...
mdb
>>Well Ben wouldn't be dead if TESB was a standalone.
>
>
>You are completely avoiding the point of this part of the discussion.
>The original poster cited as one of the TPM's flaws that the Star Wars
>movies should work on their own, without the sequels. ESB, as it is,
>with no changes, doesn't stand as well on it's own as the Phantom
>Menace does. The only two films in the Star Wars series capable of
>standing alone are TPM and ANH. We could certainly take each film,
>rewrite parts of it, and put it back out as an individual movie that
>works on it's own but that's not the point. You're agreeing with me
>and you aren't even noticing it. :)
I don't know who did the original post but I never subscribed to the
"as is" stip on considering the movies as stand alones, and I doubt
the original poster meant strictly "as is" since eveyone knows the
movie is a cliff hanger. The point is that the characters in TESB
developed and the characters in TPM pretty much just went along for
the ride. The romance inTESB was a lot better done than in TPM. The
whole teacher/pupil relationship was much better in TESB. The
explaination of the Force and how Jedis should behave was alot better
in TESB than in TPM. In Luke vs. Vader there was this entire story
about the fight, Luke's inexperience, Luke's anger, Luke's parentage.
In TPM it is simply a brilliant display of fight choreography.
If you want to say complete stand alone as is, I guess TPM is better
than TESB, but it's a hollow victory.
>>The argument is that nothing in Ep II and III will make Obi Wan less
>>wasted in the first 3/4s of TPM or make the Ani/Amidala relationship
>>any more realistic (Though I fully expect the TPM:SE to put back in
>>the scene where Ani tells her about the dream where they were married
>>so that might help) or JarJar any less annoying or the battle droids
>>any less foppish or the Trade Fed guys any better characters.
>
>The whole point of this part of the conversation is that TPM, as it
>is, whether you like it or not, can stand alone, without the context
>of the sequels. Granted, it's much stronger with them, but it doesn't
>necessarily need them. Those are all your problems with the movie and
>have little to do with anything being discussed here.
Fine. You win. Pop the cork on the champagne bottle. TESB doesn't
have an ending, we've known that for 20 years. And I'll just assume
that you have no rebuttal to all my complaints above.
>>Obi Wan and Qui Gon's almost entire lives were about being a Jedi.
>>Presumably a good chunk of Darth Maul's life is about being a Sith.
>>It is personal history.
>
>No, that is Jedi history and Sith history. Personal history is when
>you played softball together in junior high or something.
Environment is part of personal history. I'm an American raised in
the South so the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Depression,
WWII, Vietnam, the Cold War are all part o mypersonal history.
>The conversation between Obi-Wan and Vader in ANH helped to establish
>their personal interaction with each other in their past. All it
>would have done in this would have been to provide some goofy
>premature gloating by the bad guy.
Of coure there is nothing goofy about just standing there staring.
>>>>>And I disagree about character conflict. Did you not see the struggle
>>>>>in Obi-Wan, the anger that he gave in to?
>>>>
>>>>The anger is present only because we have become so sensitive to the
>>>>issue because of RotJ. For the same reason, everyone assumes Qui Gon
>>>>was meditating to stay calm instead of what it was really meant to be,
>>>>Qui Gon trying to get his breath back.
>>>
>>>Sensitive to the issue because of RotJ? I thought it was pretty
>>>clear, the emotions he was experiencing.
>>
>>You think Qui Gon was feeling intense anger and the pull of the dark
>>side?
>
>No. I was talking about Obi-Wan. I said Obi-Wan, even, if you'd read
>what I wrote.
I meant to say Obi Wan. Obi Wan got angrier after Qui Gon died, but
it wasn't anything on an unnatural level and Obi Wan's issue will be
his defiance.
>>> I'm not sure I know what you
>>>are referring to. And there's really no indication of Qui-Gon being
>>>overly tired in the movie. Unless you read the book, which the
>>>majority of people who see the movie probably won't, then you're not
>>>going to think, 'oh he must be catching his breath.'
>>
>>Well he sure was breathing hard after the Tatooine duel.
>
>Yes but that's not the battle I'd been talking about. I didn't see
>any panting while he was behind that force field. I suspect you know
>what I was talking about and are just being difficult.
Well first, you said "there is no indecation of Qui Gon beingoverly
tired in the movie." I guess you meant to say"in that scene"?
Here is my point spelt out so as not to be difficult.
Qui Gon kneels when the force fields are on. The book says he was
tired. The fight on Tatooine gives evidence that Qui Gon can't match
Maul's youth and strength. But everyone, myself included, when we saw
Qui Gon kneel, thought he was meditating, staying calm, avoiding the
anger and the dark side. Why do we assume that? Because we are
senstive to the issue. In lightsaber duels the good guys have to
avoid giving in to their anger.
Therefore when Obi Wan goes smashing at Maul after Qui gon' death,
we're all so sensitive to the issue of anger that we assume he's in
danger of turning. We will see this danger n every lightsaber fight
and can find it even in te first duel if we go back and look for it.
(In fact, this whole Living Force/disappearing Jedis when they die
thing seems to be a big point upcoming)
mdb
>>dvora...@mindspring.com (mdb) wrote:
>
>>Nope. Lucas is not infallible.
>
>Of course he's not. And neither are you...
>
>>And there is a difference between
>>things that SHOULD have been done differently and things people'd have
>>LIKED to be different. For example I would have LIKED Jar Jar to be a
>>much different character but Jar Jar SHOULD have some other accent
>>than the Jamacian thing.
>
>I fail to see the difference between your two opinions about Jar Jar. They are
>both opinions with very little difference from one another (unless you are
>using "should" in some politically correct way, implying that Jar Jar's
>"accent" is offensive, which I disagree with - I thought Jar Jar was a positive
>character, a good guy, so if you detect a Jamaican accent [and I don't], what's
>the difference?).
The difference is that while I would like Jar Jar to be a better
character, it's only my opinion of what is better or worse to like.
The thing aoutthe Jamacian accent (and the Trade fd's Japanese
accents) is that they pull us out of the Star Wars galaxy and remind
us it is just a movie.
The Creature Cantinna is really just a bar out of the old wild West
full of slimey characters, but when you see it you don't think, oh
I've seen this in a dozen westerns or gee, a bunch of guys in suits,
you think wow, look at that a cantinna ful of aliens.
It's not so hard to doublethink past the accents but you shouldnt
have to.
mdb
>Glenn Saunders <cybp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Here are my responses to the apologists. I'm a Led Zeppelin fan, and
>> I find parallels here between TPM and the recent Page Plant album. A
>> lot of expectations, bad reviews, and apologists coming out of the
>> woodworks who fail to be objective about the failings of the new work.
>No one is objective about the failings of the originals,
I think plenty of people are objective about the failings of ANH and
TESB. The effects were bad in some areas, the dialogue wasn't
Shakespeare or delivered as such. The thing is it doesn't matter.
The movie was magic. As for failings of TESB, well they set it up as
a cliffhanger. Are there failings beyond that?
CCClamp
>wonder what is consider entertainment these days. Any respectable film
>critic shall devulge The Phantom Menace as the biggest dissapointment in
>cinema history. -d
Oh no. Don't say that. DOOOON'T insinuate that people who enjoyed the TPM
experience have an inferior concept of what "entertainment" is supposed to be.
Frankly, I was very entertained by the unfolding of more of the story that I
fell in love with almost a decade ago. That was why I wanted and waited to see
it, and I was not disappointed.
If this movie ranks as "biggest disappointment" for you, I have to ask, what
were you expecting? I just don't see TPM as far out of the realm of typical
Star Wars--I think it was VERY Star Wars. Feel free to disagree with me. But
might your disappointment be fueled by unreasonable expectations? We ought to
Gregory Cook
=That's important because the only person who can say what TPM, or Episode II,
=or Episode III, SHOULD have is -- George Lucas. We can say what we'd LIKE to
=see, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD have been in there. In fact, one could
=make the argument that if it had been extensively focus-grouped, it wouldn't be
="Star Wars" anymore, since it would have lacked Lucas' driving vision.
Actually, if there was a real God, Kershner would have partial say
along with Lucas on what's in Episode 3. #;-}>
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg "Fox" Cook -- Rice University 2000 -- English Major
gfox...@earthlink.net - http://home.earthlink.net/~gfoxcook
Robert Heinlein/The X-Files/Star Wars/Star Trek: NextGen fan
U2/Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd/Tori Amos/The Who/David Bowie fan
"Ahhh!!! I'm gonna die! Jesus,
____ Allah, Buddha, I love you all!" - Homer J. Simpson ____
Que II
why >they don't etc., and with all sincerity, for
>those they say they liked TPM.....well, you >guys can't possibly know what a
truly
>good film really is.
Wow. Rarely have I seen such arrogance. This is the kind of artsy-fartsy B.S. I
have come to expect from the cultural elitists in our midst, but I'm still
amazed when I come across it.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>for those they say they liked TPM.....well, you guys can't possibly know
>what a truly good film really is.
Most people are coming into this debate thinking the question is "Did I
enjoy this movie or not?" and not "Is this a truly good film?" -- two
completely different questions whose answers often have little to do with
each other. Simply check the box office results for such critically panned
films as Independence Day and Armageddon.
Still, even the question of "Is this a truly good film?" is largely
subjective in conclusion, as even the most experienced and learned students
of film can view the same movie and draw completely different conclusions.
Why do you think that your opinion somehow is the only correct one?
Jeff Sykes
JALefkowit
>Actually, if there was a real God, Kershner would have partial say
>along with Lucas on what's in Episode 3. #;-}>
Agreed 110%. Actually, I think if Lucas was smart he'd stick to dreaming up
the broad storyline of the prequel trilogy and let someone else actually
*write* the thing (wasn't there a rumor about Frank Darabont offering to do a
rewrite of Ep. 1?). A great man recognizes his weaknesses as well as his
strengths, and Lucas needs to recognize that he's just not a writer.
-- Jason Lefkowitz
JALefkowit
>Try spinning. That's a good trick.
I'm not "spinning", as you put it... see below.
>>That's important because the only person who can say what TPM, or Episode
>II,
>>or Episode III, SHOULD have is -- George Lucas. We can say what we'd LIKE
>to
>>see, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD have been in there.
>
>Nope. Lucas is not infallible. And there is a difference between
>things that SHOULD have been done differently and things people'd have
>LIKED to be different. For example I would have LIKED Jar Jar to be a
>much different character but Jar Jar SHOULD have some other accent
>than the Jamacian thing.
First of all, I never claimed that Lucas was "infallible". Just that "Star
Wars" is what *he* says it is, not what you say it is or what I say it is.
There is not some objective standard of "Star Wars" out there that GL can fail
to meet. He can degrade and ruin "Star Wars", but if he makes a film and puts
the "Star Wars" label on it, face it, it's "Star Wars" no matter how much it
sucks. If you don't like TPM, you're free to stop watching "Star Wars" movies
and go watch something else you like better, but you have no claim on saying
what should or should not be in there.
As to your Jar Jar point -- way to contradict yourself there. Who are you to
say what Jar Jar SHOULD be? "Jar Jar Binks" is a character dreamed up by
George Lucas. GL is the final arbiter of what "Jar Jar Binks" is. You are
free to hate GL's "Jar Jar Binks", but you can't say he SHOULD be something
else. If he was something else, he by definition wouldn't be "Jar Jar Binks",
get it?
To demonstrate my point and my objectivity: I thought the Coruscant scenes
dragged on waaaaaaay too long. I would say that I would have liked to have
seen them edited down (and more screen time given to character development).
But I can't say that GL SHOULD have done that -- only that I disagree with his
artistic choice.
>>TPM faces a lot of criticism solely based on the fact that for 16 years
>people
>>have been shooting this film in their minds. Every Star Wars fan has got
>his
>>own private "Episode I" floating around in his head.
>
>Speaking for myself, I hadn't a single clue about how Episode I should
>or would be be. If you'd given me a blank sheet of paper and a pen
>I'd have blown my top like the "red R2" in ANH. But having seen what
>Lucas came up with, there are many things that I can see that could
>have been done better.
Which I never argued with. I never claimed that TPM was perfect in any way (I
posted my review to the group, look it up if you don't believe me). All I was
saying is that we can say what we would LIKE to see done differently, but we
have no room to tell an artist that he SHOULD do something differently. It's
his art! If you don't like it, go watch a movie made by an artist whose taste
is more in line with yours. But don't let your affiliation as a "Star Wars"
fan blind you to the facts about who *owns* "Star Wars".
Fishico
>movies should work on their own, without the sequels. ESB, as it is,
>with no changes, doesn't stand as well on it's own as the Phantom
>Menace does. The only two films in the Star Wars series capable of
>standing alone are TPM and ANH.
No, I think YOU'RE missing the point. ESB obviously required ANH to set up its
characters and ROTJ to resolve its conflicts. But no one in 1980 said, "ESB
doesn't seem very good now but maybe it'll seem better after the next film."
The merits of the first Star Wars films were evident immediately.
Let's face facts--the Phantom Menace is seriously flawed. It is not a
well-made movie. We may all pray that the negative reviews penetrate George
Lucas' skull and cause him to take better care in his writing and directing of
episodes 2 and 3. But even if the next two episodes are the best in the series
(and I hope they are), that won't change the fact that Episode 1 was done very
badly
CJ
Galactica2
>The difference is that while I would like Jar Jar to be a better
>character, it's only my opinion of what is better or worse to like.
Huh?
>The thing aoutthe Jamacian accent (and the Trade fd's Japanese
>accents) is that they pull us out of the Star Wars galaxy and remind
>us it is just a movie.
Us? Speak for yourself, first of all. You assume too much.
Secondly, I'm sorry that now that you're an adult, it's easier to be reminded
that TPM is just a movie, but I know when I'm looking at spaceships, creatures,
lightsabers, etc., I'm usually aware I'm watching a movie, that none of it is
real - yet miraculously I'm still able to enjoy it. I'm sorry you're not.
>The Creature Cantinna is really just a bar out of the old wild West
>full of slimey characters, but when you see it you don't think, oh
>I've seen this in a dozen westerns or gee, a bunch of guys in suits,
>you think wow, look at that a cantinna ful of aliens.
Wow, now you're not only speaking for me, you're telling me what I think! ...
When I was 5, I marvelled at the aliens in the cantina - now that I'm 27, I
marvel at how cheesy some of the costumes are (and how cool some of the
costumes are). But I'm always aware they're costumes. Yet still, I love the
movie.
Again, you assume too much.
> It's not so hard to doublethink past the accents but you shouldnt
>have to.
Dude, with all due respect, you appear to be so out of touch with reality, it's
frightening -- do you realize you are actually angry at George Lucas because
you feel his movie should be so magical that you never once remember you're
watching a movie and you're upset because there are some parts that you don't
feel are absolutely perfect? How sad.
Let it go, young padawan. Let it go.
Gregory Cook
=On 22 May 1999, "Gregory Cook" <gfox...@earthlink.net> wrote:
=
=>Actually, if there was a real God, Kershner would have partial say
=>along with Lucas on what's in Episode 3. #;-}>
=
=Agreed 110%. Actually, I think if Lucas was smart he'd stick to dreaming up
=the broad storyline of the prequel trilogy and let someone else actually
=*write* the thing (wasn't there a rumor about Frank Darabont offering to do a
=rewrite of Ep. 1?). A great man recognizes his weaknesses as well as his
=strengths, and Lucas needs to recognize that he's just not a writer.
I don't care who writes it. To be frank, in this new breed of SW
movies, the writing isn't going to matter if the director exercizes
some artistic control. Lucas gave Kershner a lot during ESB. I don't
think he'd give him as much nowadays....
Shannon
>If you want to say complete stand alone as is, I guess TPM is better
>than TESB, but it's a hollow victory.
Hon, I'm not trying to win any victories for TPM. I'm just trying to
stick to the point. The original person said, ' Imagine TPM if there
were no sequels. Star Wars movies work on their own, and TPM doesn't."
All I ever meant was that, if you did that with all the movies, TPM
would hold up better than some of the others.
>
>Fine. You win. Pop the cork on the champagne bottle. TESB doesn't
>have an ending, we've known that for 20 years. And I'll just assume
>that you have no rebuttal to all my complaints above.
I don't agree with most of your complaints about the movie. I've
explained why elsewhere, and I don't really feel like repeating
myself.
>>The conversation between Obi-Wan and Vader in ANH helped to establish
>>their personal interaction with each other in their past. All it
>>would have done in this would have been to provide some goofy
>>premature gloating by the bad guy.
>
>Of coure there is nothing goofy about just standing there staring.
There's a difference between a stare and the way he was glowering at
them. I personally think it's much more powerful the way it is.
>
>I meant to say Obi Wan. Obi Wan got angrier after Qui Gon died, but
>it wasn't anything on an unnatural level and Obi Wan's issue will be
>his defiance.
I don't think it's *unnatural* either. But it was out of line with
the way the Jedi are supposed to be able to control their anger.
Nothing much more to be said, you think one thing, I think another.
I'm tired of arguing about it.
>Well first, you said "there is no indecation of Qui Gon beingoverly
>tired in the movie." I guess you meant to say"in that scene"?
Well, that's what I was referring to yes. I didn't think I needed to
specify that scene because that was, after all, what we were talking
about.
>Here is my point spelt out so as not to be difficult.
>
>Qui Gon kneels when the force fields are on. The book says he was
>tired. The fight on Tatooine gives evidence that Qui Gon can't match
>Maul's youth and strength. But everyone, myself included, when we saw
>Qui Gon kneel, thought he was meditating, staying calm, avoiding the
>anger and the dark side. Why do we assume that? Because we are
>senstive to the issue. In lightsaber duels the good guys have to
>avoid giving in to their anger.
Ok, that makes perfect sense. But there was no evidence *in that
scene* that Qui-Gon was tired. So yes, we do assume he's meditating,
and no one who didn't read the book would think otherwise. Jeez, I
can't even remember why this became an issue here...
>Therefore when Obi Wan goes smashing at Maul after Qui gon' death,
>we're all so sensitive to the issue of anger that we assume he's in
>danger of turning. We will see this danger n every lightsaber fight
>and can find it even in te first duel if we go back and look for it.
>(In fact, this whole Living Force/disappearing Jedis when they die
>thing seems to be a big point upcoming)
I didn't think he was in danger of turning. I do however, think it
shows that he's still not completely in control and is a poor choice
as teacher to someone as strong in the Force as Anakin.
mdb
>>The difference is that while I would like Jar Jar to be a better
>>character, it's only my opinion of what is better or worse to like.
>
>Huh?
To "LIKE" something is subjective but there is a level of critical
judgement that is much less subjective. Some people might like Hulk
Hogan in Mr. Nanny, but it's not a good film. I *like* TPM but it
should have been a better movie.
>>The thing aoutthe Jamacian accent (and the Trade fd's Japanese
>>accents) is that they pull us out of the Star Wars galaxy and remind
>>us it is just a movie.
>
>Us? Speak for yourself, first of all. You assume too much.
>
>Secondly, I'm sorry that now that you're an adult, it's easier to be reminded
>that TPM is just a movie, but I know when I'm looking at spaceships, creatures,
>lightsabers, etc., I'm usually aware I'm watching a movie, that none of it is
>real - yet miraculously I'm still able to enjoy it. I'm sorry you're not.
I'm always amused to see people who try to defend their position by
attacking the critic. I had no trouble losing myself in Shakespeare
in Love, The Matrix, Saving Private Ryan's first 30 minutes, A Thin
Red Line, A Simple Plan, among others. I have no trouble losing
myself in ANH and TESB even though I've seen them 100 times and
watched all the making of specials and seen the preproduction sketches
and all that. Bladerunner, 2001, Akira, Monty Python and the Holy
Grail, Unforgiven, Shawshank Redemption, etc. etc. I could go on. I
have no problem losing myself in a movie when the movie is true
enough.
>>The Creature Cantinna is really just a bar out of the old wild West
>>full of slimey characters, but when you see it you don't think, oh
>>I've seen this in a dozen westerns or gee, a bunch of guys in suits,
>>you think wow, look at that a cantinna ful of aliens.
>
>Wow, now you're not only speaking for me, you're telling me what I think! ...
>When I was 5, I marvelled at the aliens in the cantina - now that I'm 27, I
>marvel at how cheesy some of the costumes are (and how cool some of the
>costumes are). But I'm always aware they're costumes. Yet still, I love the
>movie.
You know, I finished that sentence and thought for a moment to go back
and rewrite it to remove the "you"s because I saw exactly that
response coming. Better reword it or he'll say that's not what *I*
think. Oh well so much for the benefit of the doubt.
And I'm perfectly aware they are guys in suits, just as I'm aware Mark
Hamill is Luke Skywalker. But the guys in suits in ANH are aliens and
the guys in suits in RotJ are a marketing device aimed at 5 year olds.
The aliens in the Cantinna are characters, just like the pilots in the
ANH Death Star battle are. Lucas has lost that touch.
>> It's not so hard to doublethink past the accents but you shouldnt
>>have to.
>
>Dude, with all due respect, you appear to be so out of touch with reality, it's
>frightening -- do you realize you are actually angry
I'm not angry, I'm disappointed.
>at George Lucas because
>you feel his movie should be so magical that you never once remember you're
>watching a movie and you're upset because there are some parts that you don't
>feel are absolutely perfect? How sad.
Oh, so now we're trying the condescension, are we? Fact is, this was
a chance to be a glorious time but Lucas delivered a *** movie and it
could so easily have been a ***** movie. I've already started the
countdown to Ep II. I'm not upset and I'm prepared to be disappointed
again. It's just that perfect movies are so rare and Lucas was so
close with TPM, a few hours in production and scripting would have
made all the difference.
mdb
When I grow up, I wanna be a Tusken Raider.
Win Sabres Win
mdb
>>Try spinning. That's a good trick.
>
>I'm not "spinning", as you put it... see below.
I suggest you try.
>>>That's important because the only person who can say what TPM, or Episode
>>II,
>>>or Episode III, SHOULD have is -- George Lucas. We can say what we'd LIKE
>>to
>>>see, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD have been in there.
>>
>>Nope. Lucas is not infallible. And there is a difference between
>>things that SHOULD have been done differently and things people'd have
>>LIKED to be different. For example I would have LIKED Jar Jar to be a
>>much different character but Jar Jar SHOULD have some other accent
>>than the Jamacian thing.
>
>First of all, I never claimed that Lucas was "infallible". Just that "Star
>Wars" is what *he* says it is, not what you say it is or what I say it is.
>There is not some objective standard of "Star Wars" out there that GL can fail
>to meet. He can degrade and ruin "Star Wars", but if he makes a film and puts
>the "Star Wars" label on it, face it, it's "Star Wars" no matter how much it
>sucks.
That's absolutely true. Won't make the bashing of (some of) the books
and the christmas special and the Ewok movies and RotJ and TPM any
less meaningful.
>If you don't like TPM, you're free to stop watching "Star Wars" movies
>and go watch something else you like better, but you have no claim on saying
>what should or should not be in there.
As a fan of Star Wars I have every claim I need to say what should and
shouldn't be there. Lucas could have done the space battle with
models on visible string with sparklers for engines as a grand tribute
to the Flash Gordon serials and it's his movies to do what he wants
with but if he had, I'd say he should have used more modern effects.
But this is what most of the rebuttal to complaints of TPM have
become, attacks on the critics, "it's only a movie" and "You can't
argue with Lucas."
>As to your Jar Jar point -- way to contradict yourself there. Who are you to
>say what Jar Jar SHOULD be? "Jar Jar Binks" is a character dreamed up by
>George Lucas. GL is the final arbiter of what "Jar Jar Binks" is. You are
>free to hate GL's "Jar Jar Binks", but you can't say he SHOULD be something
>else. If he was something else, he by definition wouldn't be "Jar Jar Binks",
>get it?
Yeah, you're running around in circles in some absurd attempt to
convince ... someone, yourself, me, RASSM, ??? that TPM is beyond any
criticism than a lame "I didn't like this or that." For all your
semantics, saying "I hate Jar Jar" is saying 'I think Jar Jar should
have been different.'
>To demonstrate my point and my objectivity: I thought the Coruscant scenes
>dragged on waaaaaaay too long. I would say that I would have liked to have
>seen them edited down (and more screen time given to character development).
>But I can't say that GL SHOULD have done that -- only that I disagree with his
>artistic choice.
Boy. That is a marvel. I would have liked the scenes to be editted a
bit but I can't say they should have been. That's quite amusing and
awfully passive of you.
>>Speaking for myself, I hadn't a single clue about how Episode I should
>>or would be be. If you'd given me a blank sheet of paper and a pen
>>I'd have blown my top like the "red R2" in ANH. But having seen what
>>Lucas came up with, there are many things that I can see that could
>>have been done better.
>
>Which I never argued with. I never claimed that TPM was perfect in any way (I
>posted my review to the group, look it up if you don't believe me). All I was
>saying is that we can say what we would LIKE to see done differently, but we
>have no room to tell an artist that he SHOULD do something differently. It's
>his art! If you don't like it, go watch a movie made by an artist whose taste
>is more in line with yours. But don't let your affiliation as a "Star Wars"
>fan blind you to the facts about who *owns* "Star Wars".
We own Star Wars, Lucas just creates it.
Shannon
>>The original poster cited as one of the TPM's flaws that the Star Wars
>>movies should work on their own, without the sequels. ESB, as it is,
>>with no changes, doesn't stand as well on it's own as the Phantom
>>Menace does. The only two films in the Star Wars series capable of
>>standing alone are TPM and ANH.
>
>
>No, I think YOU'RE missing the point. ESB obviously required ANH to set up its
>characters and ROTJ to resolve its conflicts. But no one in 1980 said, "ESB
>doesn't seem very good now but maybe it'll seem better after the next film."
>The merits of the first Star Wars films were evident immediately.
No I'm not missing the point. Go back and reread what the original
poster said. "Imagine TPM without the sequels." The same can be said
of ESB. That is *all* I've been trying to say. And I'm not going to
try to say it anymore, I'm tired of all this ridiculous arguing.
>Let's face facts--the Phantom Menace is seriously flawed. It is not a
>well-made movie. We may all pray that the negative reviews penetrate George
>Lucas' skull and cause him to take better care in his writing and directing of
>episodes 2 and 3. But even if the next two episodes are the best in the series
>(and I hope they are), that won't change the fact that Episode 1 was done very
>badly
>
He doesn't care about the negative reviews, because most of the people
going to see it like it. No one ever said it didn't have flaws, but I
certainly don't think it was done particularly badly.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread. I can't debate endlessly like some of
you can. Have fun. :)
Karl Kindt IV
rambled on, saying...
>
> Here are my responses to the apologists. I'm a Led Zeppelin fan, and
> I find parallels here between TPM and the recent Page Plant album. A
> lot of expectations, bad reviews, and apologists coming out of the
> woodworks who fail to be objective about the failings of the new work.
> We don't really learn that much about how Jedi are trained.
> We don't see any other Jedi in training at Coruscant, or get any more
> of the atmosphere than purely a superficial level. The whole movie is
I feel sorry for you. I DO appreciate your thoughtful commentary, but I
am afraid you probably saw the original movies and have not been able to
see the forest for the trees.
Most kids I know who have seen TPM have thought it was better. This is
their first REAL SW experience. Those who have not bathed in SW stuff for
22 years are the best objective measure we have. My 5 year old daughter
loved this new one. She connected with it more than any of the others,
and she likes the others as well. You can never go home again.
In brief conclusion, how can ANYONE not think TPM was at least better
than ROTJ?
--
--
Karl Kindt IV
han...@postnet.com
donte...@aol.com
> you feel his movie should be so magical that you never once remember you're
> watching a movie
Hey "dude", will all do respect, he means caring about a movie, having an
attachment to it on some subconconcious level. TPM was all physical, a light show,
neat-o sounds. BULLSHIT. An attrocity. The only thing holding it up is it's FX,
which to me, don't have any realism to them.
I just don't understand some of you....
donte...@aol.com
> saying is that we can say what we would LIKE to see done differently, but we
> have no room to tell an artist that he SHOULD do something differently.
Uh, but this piece of garbage you call "art" bears no signs of artistic integrity.
So it was for entertainment purposes only, right? Well, I was not entertained, and
neither were many others. I still want my 7 dollars back. It really was that bad.
-d
donte...@aol.com
When it comes to films, your damn straight I consider myself an elitist. So why
not just come out and say it:
FACT: Whether you liked, loved, or had mixed feelings for it, that matters little
because the TPM was a piece of shit. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. Or, I
might say you are like deer lost in somebody's headlights...Lucas made a bad film,
it appeals only to people who can like bad films. I heard someone a few days ago
on this very list defend the TPM by criticizing S. Kubrik's 2001: A SPACE ODDESSEY
for lacking character development! Ha! I can't help but laugh! 2001 is inarguably
on of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of the 20th century. You criticize it
because you don't get it. Ehh...I'll stand my ground on TPM. You people that
defend this film....I simply cannot contemplate your rationality.
Alas, time will prove me 100% right. Because only a few short years after Episode
3 finally comes out, TPM will come some visual as a cheesy 1980's SFX sci-fi
creation does today? Tell me, have any of you seen The Last Starfighter? How is
it any different that TPM? The FX are both computer generated. The Last
Starfighter had people with personality, actors acting some kind of role. TPM will
looks a heaping pile vomit to me now. I predict a few short years after the
release of Episode 3, w/o a plot or characters, it will seem that way to everyone.
Just to be really offensive, I'll say if you liked TPM, you don't know shit about
good movies. I won't go into those that bother to waste more money to see it
again. Sheesh...
> I've seen thousands of movies, I have >knowledge of filmaking, why films work,
> why they don't etc., and with all sincerity, for those they say they liked
> TPM.....well, you >guys can't possibly know what a truly good film really is.
>
Ken Blount
credentials as a movie "god". Preferably, lifetime work involving movies
(please list all movies that you have worked with), college of movie
reviewing degree, college of know what other people should like degree, and
most importantly, a detailed outline of why I should give a crap what you
think, do, or say. Please waste as much time as you would like making it as
detailed as you would like - I don't plan on reading it anyway.
Chris Pierson
If we take a collection, and mail you seven dollars, would you kwitcher
bitching then? Because it's getting rather tiresome.
--
Chris Pierson ** "Now my body is in tumult. It is a colossal moment of joy.
** I would like to be Jupiter and kidnap everybody and lie
Author ** down in the firmament making love to everybody."
Game Designer ** -- Roberto Benigni, Best Actor & World's Most Exuberant Man
LoneIdiot
>
>>>Try spinning. That's a good trick.
>>
>>I'm not "spinning", as you put it... see below.
>
>I suggest you try.
Do or do not, there is no try.
-The Lone Idiot
Que II
about good movies. I won't go into those that bother to waste more money to see
it again. Sheesh...
Oohh, touched a nerve did I?
Que II
Thank God. Now go back into your hole.
SON N LAW
>about
>good movies. I won't go into those that bother to waste more money to see it
>again. Sheesh...
>
>
embarasses me...but I have to take a shot at this asshole. I loved Episode 1,
and if you want to take a shot at me, then bring it on. I usually refrain from
allowing myself to get into a "battle of the wits" with an unarmed man, but in
your case, I'll make an exception. The only reason you are attacking this
movie is because you have realized what an insignificant piece of shit you are
in the realm of things, and you think that by attacking one of the largest
cultural phenomenon of all time, you will be seen as better than it. If you
had simply come in here explaining why you didn't like the movie, instead of
attacking those of us who love it, I would have respectfully read your post,
and possibly rebutted in a friendly fashion. You OBVIOUSLY aren't a Star Wars
fan, whether you think you are or not, so why don't you leave this group, and
spread your manure somewhere else. Simply put, if you have such problems with
this movie, then you must not really love the original trilogy either, or the
same problems with those films would have elicited similar responses. I could
give you any number of reasons why TPM worked JUST as well as the other three
films, and if I chose to, give many examples of problems in the originals that
mirror complaints people are having with TPM...but I won't, because I've wasted
as much energy as I'm going to waste on someone like you. If you are going to
attack be prepared to accept equally vicious response, boy, because alot of
people are going to take your very personal attack to heart.
Dennis Burger
Galactica2
>To "LIKE" something is subjective but there is a level of critical
>judgement that is much less subjective. Some people might like Hulk
>Hogan in Mr. Nanny, but it's not a good film. I *like* TPM but it
>should have been a better movie.
I think most of us understand the idea of enjoying a film but still not
thinking it's a great film. What you still fail to realize, however, is that
the idea of what is or is not a great film is just as subjective as whether or
not a film is likable. There is no immovable standard of what makes a good
film. That is the beauty of art -- it is open to interpretation. I'm sure
you're already aware that many works of art that are now considered great were
trashed or misunderstood by critics in their day. One viewer's trash is
another's masterpiece. Obviously, it bothers you that some people love what
you have deemed to be trash. I wonder why you take it so personally. Get over
it. Try to accept that your mind is one of many in the world, and that
interpretations of art will always be subjective.
>I'm always amused to see people who try to defend their position by
>attacking the critic.
...probably because that's exactly what you've done in several posts in this
thread.
>I had no trouble losing myself in Shakespeare
>in Love, The Matrix, [snip long list of films you love]...I have no trouble
losing
>myself in ANH and TESB even though I've seen them 100 times and
>watched all the making of specials and seen the preproduction sketches
>and all that. ... I
>have no problem losing myself in a movie when the movie is true
>enough.
It would be impossible for me to respond to your basic point in this paragraph:
that TPM lacked that ephemeral quality that hooks you into a movie to the point
that you're completely "lost" in the film. Obviously, for you, it lacked that
quality. For me, it did not lack that quality. Now, you can try to argue (as
you basically have in other posts) that the only reason TPM did not lack that
quality for me is because I'm an idiot who doesn't understand what makes a good
movie. See, I don't object to your opinion that TPM is a bad film, although I
disagree; what I object to is your laughable assertion that because you believe
it's a bad film, anyone who doesn't agree is a mindless cretin. In fact, your
thesis is so laughable, I'm amazed I'm replying seriously. You are probably
just a troll.
>You know, I finished that sentence and thought for a moment to go back
>and rewrite it to remove the "you"s because I saw exactly that
>response coming. Better reword it or he'll say that's not what *I*
>think. Oh well so much for the benefit of the doubt.
LOL! So you're saying, "I realized that what I wrote would be misinterpreted,
but rather than clarify what I wrote, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that
you'll be able to read my mind and assume that I meant something other than
what I wrote." Next time, why not try writing what you mean? Or was that just
a convoluted way of backtracking from your original statement? Either way, who
really cares?
>And I'm perfectly aware they are guys in suits, just as I'm aware Mark
>Hamill is Luke Skywalker. But the guys in suits in ANH are aliens and
>the guys in suits in RotJ are a marketing device aimed at 5 year olds.
>The aliens in the Cantinna are characters, just like the pilots in the
>ANH Death Star battle are. Lucas has lost that touch.
I love ANH too. I'm not about to argue that I love TPM as much ... but then I
never expected to. Personally, I don't agree Lucas has lost his touch for
great creature characters -- I really liked Sebulba, Boss Nass, Watto, Gasgano,
Captain Tarpals, and, yes, Jar Jar. And as for the humans, I really liked
Qui-Gon and Amidala a lot, as well as Palpatine/Sidious. That's my opinion -
go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong.
>I'm not angry, I'm disappointed.
OK, I'll take you on word for that - but your posts read to me as very angry,
which is why I drew that conclusion.
>Oh, so now we're trying the condescension, are we? Fact is, this was
>a chance to be a glorious time but Lucas delivered a *** movie and it
>could so easily have been a ***** movie.
So easily? Are you a filmmaker, I wonder? I'm not, but from what I
understand, it's pretty difficult to make a great film. I read an article that
said some fans seem to think Lucas wanders around for 3 years and then just
craps out a movie, with no thought or effort. The truth is he works nonstop
for 3 years to make the best movie he can possibly imagine. Clearly, it is far
from the best movie you can imagine. But the key is being able to turn that
imagination into reality as a film. Every movie is "a chance to be a glorious
time," but few come burdened with such awesomely unrealizable expectations.
I'm sorry if I sound condescending to you, but I do think you assume too much.
I've already started the
>countdown to Ep II. I'm not upset and I'm prepared to be disappointed
>again.
No doubt you will be...
>It's just that perfect movies are so rare and Lucas was so
>close with TPM, a few hours in production and scripting would have
>made all the difference.
LOL! A few hours? You must be a troll -- even those with the most rudimentary
knowledge of filmmaking know that... oh, never mind. Basically, you're saying
here that TPM has failed because it's not perfect. Step back for a second and
look at that concept for a minute, if you can.
Galactica2
>Heh, I guess there was no point in trying to cover my ass in my original
>post.
First of all, "donte...@aol.com" is not a real AOL address -- anyone on aol
can figure this out pretty easily by trying to get his profile - there's one
too many letters in his screenname. Troll.
Bob Wilson and his Garage
>Heh, I guess there was no point in trying to cover my ass in my original post.
>When it comes to films, your damn straight I consider myself an elitist. So why
>not just come out and say it:
>
>FACT: Whether you liked, loved, or had mixed feelings for it, that matters little
>because the TPM was a piece of shit. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. Or, I
>might say you are like deer lost in somebody's headlights...Lucas made a bad film,
>it appeals only to people who can like bad films. I heard someone a few days ago
>on this very list defend the TPM by criticizing S. Kubrik's 2001: A SPACE ODDESSEY
>for lacking character development! Ha! I can't help but laugh! 2001 is inarguably
>on of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of the 20th century. You criticize it
>because you don't get it. Ehh...I'll stand my ground on TPM. You people that
>defend this film....I simply cannot contemplate your rationality.
>
>Alas, time will prove me 100% right. Because only a few short years after Episode
>3 finally comes out, TPM will come some visual as a cheesy 1980's SFX sci-fi
>creation does today? Tell me, have any of you seen The Last Starfighter? How is
>it any different that TPM? The FX are both computer generated. The Last
>Starfighter had people with personality, actors acting some kind of role. TPM will
>looks a heaping pile vomit to me now. I predict a few short years after the
>release of Episode 3, w/o a plot or characters, it will seem that way to everyone.
>
>Just to be really offensive, I'll say if you liked TPM, you don't know shit about
>good movies. I won't go into those that bother to waste more money to see it
>again. Sheesh...
Gee, that entire post wasn't a blatant attempt to attract flames.
*killfiles the troll*
Eric Sansoni
>
>Objectively? "The Phantom Menace" is a fun movie that's about a half-hour
>longer than it ought to be;
I think it was too short. I wasn't satisfied.
>that spends much more time setting up the podrace
>sequence than it should;
No, the pod race and Tatooine scenes are by far the best section of the movie.
Setting up the scene gives it meaning, and adds suspense. By comparison the way
the Battle Droid destruction at the end was handled was disappointing. We hear
one line about how knocking out the ship will destroy them, and then run off to
see it happen. There's no build-up or tension. With Watto, Sebulba, C-3PO,
Anakin's mother, all the funny aliens at the pod race, and the way our old alien
friends were given new roles, the Tatooine segment was an incredible collection
of humor, visuals, action, drama, cleverness...even Jar Jar's best scenes came
here. I loved almost all of it.
>that tends to pander to the kids a little too much
>with more or less every one of Jar-Jar's pratfall scenes;
It was slapstick comedy, some of it very well-done. I didn't like Jar Jar's
voice or dialogue too much, but his clumsiness was often a hoot. How it was
or was not integrated into the plot, though, left something to be desired.
>that has a compelling beginning and an exciting ending;
Not very compelling and not that exciting, though. And the middle Coruscant
section is confusing and drags on.
>that has dialogue that ranges from good to
>cringeworthy; that has good performances from Neeson, McGregor, Portman, and
>McDiarmid; and that has absolutely breathtaking visuals (with a tendency to
>overemphasize them to the film's detriment).
Agreed on this, except all of the performances were good. Jake Lloyd was
perfect as an enthusiastic, bright-eyed kid. I loved the fact that we saw no
hint of dark side in him. That would have been artificial and hokey. Every
terrible person in real life was once an innocent kid. It will make for an
intriguing and more poignant contrast with what we already know comes later. If
they tried to make him evil, he would come off as a brat, and we would have no
sympathy or identification with him. The Anakin we see now should be the same
one as the sweet, sensitive, even jolly old man we see in ROTJ.
-Eric S. (sn...@geocities.com or eas...@psu.edu)
"I've been wasting my life. I'm going to do what I always dreamed of.
I'm going to write that sitcom about the sassy robot!"
-Matt Groening creates Futurama
Eric Sansoni
>
>But that works because the characters had a past with each other, Ben with
>Vader and Vader with Luke. Maul, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon don't have that kind of
>relationship.
Exactly, so why make this movie if the story has such lack of interest and
drama? Why didn't Lucas make the history of Aunt Beru as a schoolmarm on
Tatooine dealing with the misbehaving antics of a young smart-alecky Greedo?
It seems now like Maul was introduced for the sole purpose of having a saber
fight at the end. Qui-Gon and Maul neatly cancel each other out at the end. So
why even introduce Qui-Gon for that matter? Obi-Wan could be the one who
discovers Anakin, as we already believed from ANH. "When I first met him, he
was already a great pilot..." But now Obi-Wan didn't even see the Pod Race.
This is why TPM seems like "the story that didn't need to be told." If Lucas
was so intent on revealing the backstory, why do that at the same time as
creating a whole bunch of new backstory to Qui-Gon and Maul which will never be
revealed?
Eric Sansoni
>
>still get flamed for this, but I've seen thousands of movies, I have knowledge
> of filmaking, why films work, why they don't etc.,...
>
>But there are people out there that think Titanic is the best
>movie ever. Truthfully, it might be the best movie they've ever seen, but to
> say it's a classic or one of the best movies ever is a fucking joke.
You're the only joke here. You can't have any knowledge of filmmaking if you
think Titanic is bad. It's a masterpiece of story development, tension,
excitement, and action on the level of the original Star Wars, with characters
that have just enough details but no pointless specific depth so that they
allow you to envision yourself in the role, having the closest thing to an
out-of-body experience. It is a fully realized piece of filmmaking art that
makes TPM and even ROTJ look like Saturday morning cartoons.
verseau
> >But there are people out there that think Titanic is the best
> >movie ever. Truthfully, it might be the best movie they've ever seen, but to
> > say it's a classic or one of the best movies ever is a fucking joke.
> You're the only joke here. You can't have any knowledge of filmmaking if you
> think Titanic is bad. It's a masterpiece of story development, tension,
> excitement, and action on the level of the original Star Wars, with characters
> that have just enough details but no pointless specific depth so that they
> allow you to envision yourself in the role, having the closest thing to an
> out-of-body experience. It is a fully realized piece of filmmaking art that
> makes TPM and even ROTJ look like Saturday morning cartoons.
Er, no. Titanic, while pretty to look at, was extraordinarily bad for
what it was hyped to be. Heck, even The Phantom Menace had better
dialogue than that movie. I went in, fully expecting to like it, and found
it very lacking. It was shot and framed well, but the story was
predictable, the characters cliche, and as one friend put it "indulgently
long". It may have been a decent film, but it is far from being a "fully
realized piece of filmmaking art". It was merely mediocre.
Eric Sansoni
>
>Qui Gon kneels when the force fields are on. The book says he was
>tired. The fight on Tatooine gives evidence that Qui Gon can't match
>Maul's youth and strength. But everyone, myself included, when we saw
>Qui Gon kneel, thought he was meditating, staying calm, avoiding the
>anger and the dark side. Why do we assume that? Because we are
>senstive to the issue.
Wrong. Never did any of that "anger turning to the dark side" stuff come to my
mind when watching TPM. I thought it was a purely physical battle. I didn't
make the connection between Qui-Gon being too old to fight Maul, I just thought
he was taking a breather during the brief respite he had. Although, I confess I
never really understood the whole anger thing in Return of the Jedi either. I
mean what's the difference, you swing your saber a little bit harder? In ESB I
guess it was a little more suspenseful, with Vader trying to tempt Luke into
losing control of his emotions, and us not quite knowing what that might result
in. I take that for what it is, a way to create some screen tension during
those movies. Trying to extend it as a rule all movies must remember and follow
just turns the trilogy into a pointless soap opera.
Eric Sansoni
>
>He
>funds it, he writes it, he shoots it, he edits it, he distributes it. TPM is,
>for better or worse, completely a product of one man's vision -- a real rarity
>in the film industry.
Who cares? Maybe it's a BAD idea for films to be made this way. It's too big a
job. Would you let one man draw, plan, build, construct the Empire State
Building? No, because it can be done better if the person most talented for the
job does each part on their own. For instance look at comic books...the artists
got so popular and became such big names, they got the clout to start writing
their own comics as well as drawing. And by far, most of these comics were some
of the worst to be published in years according to critics and fans.
>That's important because the only person who can say what TPM, or Episode II,
>or Episode III, SHOULD have is -- George Lucas.
Get real! As soon as the film is PUBLICALLY released, and we are asked to PAY
to see it, it becomes a democracy, and we each have our say on what we want to
see.
>In fact, one could
>make the argument that if it had been extensively focus-grouped, it wouldn't be
>"Star Wars" anymore, since it would have lacked Lucas' driving vision.
Who cares...I can guarantee you if it was a great flick like ESB, no one would
give a crap whose "driving vision" was behind it. They would accept it, just as
they accept Cameron's Aliens as well as Ridley Scott's original.
Eric Sansoni
>
>And I'm perfectly aware they are guys in suits, just as I'm aware Mark
>Hamill is Luke Skywalker. But the guys in suits in ANH are aliens and
>the guys in suits in RotJ are a marketing device aimed at 5 year olds.
Not true at all. The aliens in ROTJ are almost exactly like those in the
Cantina. They're there for atmosphere, and to perform certain functions in the
script, like protecting Jabba's fat hide. They kick ass! You have to
understand when it comes to marketing, the star characters (a la Luke,
Vader, Ewoks) are the big sellers. The ugly aliens are put in there for the
sake of making a better movie, and it hasn't failed yet. In fact the aliens in
TPM are pretty great too (in both movies minus the Ewoks/Gungans...I like the
aliens better as throwaways I guess, not as entire species).
>It's just that perfect movies are so rare and Lucas was so
>close with TPM, a few hours in production and scripting would have
>made all the difference.
I think it would have taken a bit more than that to fix the script. But, yeah,
just one week-long rewrite could have made a huge difference. It would have
been vitally important for Lucas to hand this script to a pro screenwriter who
could make the story flow so much better on the screen. Lucas has been doing
this for so long. Why did he become such a control freak all of a sudden?
Eric Sansoni
>
>In brief conclusion, how can ANYONE not think TPM was at least better
>than ROTJ?
ROTJ is a very good film. For one thing, the action scenes had lots of
suspense. There was nothing in TPM that put fear in my gut the way the original
Sarlacc pit did. Lucas threw so much stuff at us in TPM so fast that by the
time the final battle was over, I barely realized it had begun. The three
climaxes in ROTJ were each developed better, with more build-up and twists and
turns, than the *four* in TPM (one of the examples in TPM of how overkill,
throwing so much at us, actually ends up giving us less emotional satisfaction).
The pod race was every bit the equal to the speeder bike scene, but that's the
only part of TPM which really measures up to ROTJ. The final shifts in Vader's
character, the Luke/Leia discussion, and the final moments of the Han/Leia
relationship all bring tears to my eyes, especially the poignant final scene as
Luke sees the ghosts. Not a thing in TPM tugged at my heartstrings, and the
final scene made me want to laugh at how obviously it recalled ANH, with a
Spaceballs-like imitation. I will say that Sidious was handled better in TPM
than the cackling, evil grandmother performance behind the Emperor in ROTJ. But
for certain I don't look forward to learning more about the Emperor in Ep 2 and
3, since he always struck me as a weak character who was designed to top Vader,
but when he couldn't come close, the filmmakers were lost on how to make him a
truly effective presence.
Galactica2
>It seems now like Maul was introduced for the sole purpose of having a saber
>
>fight at the end. Qui-Gon and Maul neatly cancel each other out at the
>end. So
>why even introduce Qui-Gon for that matter?
But Obi-Wan dies in ANH and back in 1977 nobody said, "Why did they even
introduce Obi-Wan if they were going to kill him off?" (Same with Tarkin, as
relates to Maul.) Same with Romeo and Juliet for that matter.
Eric Sansoni
>
>Er, no. Titanic, while pretty to look at, was extraordinarily bad for
>what it was hyped to be.
It was a romantic disaster epic, and couldn't have done a better job of it.
>It was shot and framed well, but the story was predictable,
Haha..that will always be the funniest criticism of the movie. I'm proud you
were able to accurately predict that the boat would sink.
>the characters cliche,
A la Star Wars. They were intended to be recognizable types so the audience
would find it easier to identify with them. The movie would not be nearly as
good with a lot of unnecessary character details thrown in. It would just
detach us from feeling the adventure as intimately as we do. A la Star Wars.
>and as one friend put it "indulgently long".
When a movie is good I don't want it to end. I'm delighted to indulge.
>It may have been a decent film, but it is far from being a "fully
>realized piece of filmmaking art". It was merely mediocre.
It is every bit the equal of the original Star Wars, and incredibly similar in
terms of character development, pacing, and plot structure.
Eric Sansoni
>
>But Obi-Wan dies in ANH and back in 1977 nobody said, "Why did they even
>introduce Obi-Wan if they were going to kill him off?"
Because he was needed to introduce Luke to the Force, be his teacher and father
figure. His death was given meaning by helping us show Luke become more in
touch with the Force. By contrast, anything Qui-Gon did could have been
rewritten to be done by Obi-Wan.
>(Same with Tarkin, as relates to Maul.)
Tarkin was the driving force behind the movie's threat, the Death Star. He, not
Vader, was the star villain of the movie, and seeing him be taken care of is
part of writing a satisfying ending, especially having it come from his own
egotistical confidence in his weapon. Vader is a nice little leftover thread
in cliffhanger style, like Palpatine in TPM, but that is not a substitute for a
satisfying conclusion to the current movie's story. Maul was totally separate
from TPM's main story until his final battle, which I still struggle to find the
motivation behind. He had no relationship to the other main characters and
played no clear role in the Naboo plot. He simply was not an important
character in any way whatsoever, and that is my argument against inserting him
in the movie.
DailyRich
>my
>mind when watching TPM. I thought it was a purely physical battle. I didn't
>
>make the connection between Qui-Gon being too old to fight Maul, I just
>thought
>he was taking a breather during the brief respite he had
This scene is another example of the subtle storytelling going on in this
movie. There's a break in the battle, and this break is used to clearly define
the difference between the Light Side and the Dark Side. Qui-Gon uses the time
to focus, to center himself, remaining calm. Maul paces like a caged tiger, a
picture of barely restrained rage. A better definition of the two philosophies
you won't find anywhere else in the trilogy, and all without saying a word.
DailyRich
"The pee tube is out of alignment."
DailyRich
>rewritten to be done by Obi-Wan
Except show the Jedi as they once were. It's obvious in their scenes that the
council has become a stagnant body, convinced of their abilities and so long in
power that they have become cautious almost to the point of inaction. Qui-Gon
resists this. His death is not merely there to deprive Obi-Wan of his master,
it is the symbolic death of the Old Republic.
Galactica2
[re Obi-Wan in ANH:]
>Because he was needed to introduce Luke to the Force, be his teacher and
>father
>figure. His death was given meaning by helping us show Luke become more
>in
>touch with the Force. By contrast, anything Qui-Gon did could have been
>
>rewritten to be done by Obi-Wan.
I disagree. I thought the use of Qui-Gon helped to further define Obi-Wan's
character, especially the ironic way he must watch Qui-Gon struck down, just as
he will submit to later when Luke watches Vader kill him. I really liked the
Qui-Gon character and thought he added a lot to the story; plus, it makes sense
that Obi-Wan had a "master" before he took on an apprentice of his own.
movie's threat, the Death Star.
> He, not
>Vader, was the star villain of the movie,
I couldn't disagree more. I know that structurally, Tarkin is the villain
behind the whole operation in ANH. But in terms of who emerges as the "star
villain," I can't see how you could argue that it was not Vader. Sure, Tarkin
was his boss, but Vader was the clear epitome of evil shown in ANH, and the
villain who resonated with audiences all over the world.
>Maul was totally separate
>
>from TPM's main story until his final battle, which I still struggle to
>find the
>motivation behind. He had no relationship to the other main characters
>and
>played no clear role in the Naboo plot. He simply was not an important
He did have a relationship to one of the main characters: Palpatine. Sadly it
appears that Darth Maul is of little more consequence to the story of TPM than
Boba Fett is to ESB -- important to the plot (Fett "captures" Solo, Maul kills
Qui-Gon) but not in the film nearly as their "hype" would suggest. The
difference is that most of Fett's glorification came after the movie, whereas
Maul's glorification had been at full swing for a few months before the film
and turned out to the be out of proportion to his presence in the film. Still,
I do see his significance to the larger story: he is the first apprentice to
Palp/Sidious we meet and sets the stage for Vader's fate.
Sean O'Flaherty
>>Obi Wan and Vader. The big difference? DIALOGUE! Obi-Wan fighting
>>Vader was the resolution of a long conflict. It reflected in the
>>dialogue. Obi Wan sacrificed himself to save Luke. Vader revealed a
>>lot about his character to Obi Wan in that scene. The fighting was
>>not the point, it was a character scene. The fight in TPM, aside from
>>"No", is completely without dialogue! Maul doesn't say "and now, I
>>have had my revenge" and Qui doesn't say "where did you come from".
>
>Well that is sort of the point. What are they going to say to each
>other that is going to make anyting any clearer to the audience?
>Qui-Gon could have asked him who he was, but Maul probably wouldn't
>have told him. At this stage, the Sith obviously aren't quite ready
>to make their new threat known. Dialogue was unnecessary. With Vader
>and Kenobi in ANH, it was necessary to develop the relationship
>between the two. They had a background, a history together. To not
>speak would have been silly. That wasn't the case with this one.
With the new style of fight choreography there's realy no room of dialog,
unlike the slower fights in the first episodes. Much better to set things
up before the action starts.
--
Sean O'Flaherty
Home Page http://home.earthlink.net/~seano1/
Email seano1...@earthlink.net remove "NoSpam" to reply
DailyRich
>detailed as you would like - I don't plan on reading it anyway.
There's that open-mindedness that we've come to expect from Star Wars fans...
Chris Pierson
DailyRich <dail...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Please waste as much time as you would like making it as
>>detailed as you would like - I don't plan on reading it anyway.
>
>There's that open-mindedness that we've come to expect from Star Wars fans...
Sad, isn't it? Now, admittedly, this dontemailme fellow's clearly a troll,
but still, I miss civility around here. Not that I didn't predict this,
after the explosion of crap that followed the release of Trailer B, but
still, it's sad to watch a good newsgroup go downhill. That, and the
insane amount of traffic (which was also predictable), is making me wish I
_had_ stuck by my covenant to steer clear of rassm till sometime in June.
I broke that covenant, originally, to rag on TPM, then felt honor-bound to
stay around when I was born again. Now, though, it's just the same crap,
over and over, interspersed with arguments over whether $100 million
can possibly be a disappointment. It'll stay that way for a long time, too
-- at least until word starts to leak about Episode II, giving people
something new to complain about.
People, whether you liked TPM or not: chill. It's a movie, for God's sake.
Lucas did not eat your first-born, and neither did his detractors.
Eric Sansoni
>
>This scene is another example of the subtle storytelling going on in this
>movie. There's a break in the battle, and this break is used to clearly define
>the difference between the Light Side and the Dark Side. Qui-Gon uses the time
>to focus, to center himself, remaining calm. Maul paces like a caged tiger, a
>picture of barely restrained rage. A better definition of the two philosophies
>you won't find anywhere else in the trilogy, and all without saying a word.
I think it's like they say in the novel...it is supposed to be foreshadowing of
Qui-Gon's death. He was too old, or Maul was too well-trained, for Qui-Gon to
keep up with Maul's energy level.
Eric Sansoni
>
>I really liked the
>Qui-Gon character and thought he added a lot to the story;
That's not the point. I liked him too, but I thought the development given to
him would have worked well for Obi-Wan. We already know from ANH that Obi-Wan
is the "reckless" one who taught Anakin against Yoda's wishes. Now we have this
whole substitution inserted in...Qui-Gon becomes the defiant one, and Obi-Wan
gets a whole new reason to do it, a promise to his beloved teacher. Why not
just have Obi-Wan be defiant and reckless in the first place and skip Qui-Gon?
All I can think of is Lucas wanted some other human in there to have dialogue
with, stuck in Qui-Gon, and ending up warping the original intention of his
backstory to justify his presence.
>plus, it makes sense
>that Obi-Wan had a "master" before he took on an apprentice of his own.
Of course, but also that his master had a master...and that master had a master
of his own. We don't need to see them all. The buck has to stop somewhere, and
it would have been best to stop at Obi-Wan.
>I couldn't disagree more. I know that structurally, Tarkin is the villain
>behind the whole operation in ANH. But in terms of who emerges as the "star
>villain," I can't see how you could argue that it was not Vader. Sure, Tarkin
>was his boss, but Vader was the clear epitome of evil shown in ANH, and the
>villain who resonated with audiences all over the world.
Of course, of course...but plotwise, Tarkin is the MAIN villain. Vader was just
a henchman, subservient to Tarkin. He wasn't promoted to head movie evil dude
until ESB (and then lost the status again in ROTJ to the Emperor). I'm not
talking about significance to the culture, but of significance to the plot, and
the resolution it required. A Vader death would have been anticlimactic,
because he was just a pawn in that game. Tarkin was the evil mastermind making
all the decisions.
>He did have a relationship to one of the main characters: Palpatine...
>I do see his significance to the larger story: he is the first apprentice to
>Palp/Sidious we meet and sets the stage for Vader's fate.
It didn't really set the stage for anything though. We get no impression of the
Sith "lifestyle" or the Sith code through him, so our imagination can do nothing
to put Anakin into that position. Ok, we learn of the 2-Sith rule, and hence
know Palpatine will be looking for a second Sith. But there are certainly more
efficient ways to establish this, and we still don't know why Palpatine wants a
Sith, so that alone probably would have provided all the explanation we need to
set the stage for Anakin. As a character in the plot Maul is just a generic
G.I.Joe baddie. He was put in to scare kids and work in some lightsaber action.
Michael Mierzwa
>
> In article <19990524192147...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, galac...@aol.com (Galactica2) wrote:
> >
> >I really liked the
> >Qui-Gon character and thought he added a lot to the story;
[SPOILERS]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
> That's not the point. I liked him too, but I thought the development given to
> him would have worked well for Obi-Wan. We already know from ANH that Obi-Wan
> is the "reckless" one who taught Anakin against Yoda's wishes. Now we have this
> whole substitution inserted in...Qui-Gon becomes the defiant one, and Obi-Wan
> gets a whole new reason to do it, a promise to his beloved teacher. Why not
> just have Obi-Wan be defiant and reckless in the first place and skip Qui-Gon?
> All I can think of is Lucas wanted some other human in there to have dialogue
> with, stuck in Qui-Gon, and ending up warping the original intention of his
> backstory to justify his presence.
But we also see why Yoda is the last of the Jedi. Apparently he is the
most conservative, if not the most respected of the Jedi at this point
in time.
Obi-wan's "reckless" may have been in not heeding Yoda's warnings.
Furthermore, Obi-wan is probably going to carry the legacy of Qui-Gon
(who will probably be a ghost in Ep. 2), so his guilt may be to protect
the memory of Qui-Gon (a very human, non-Jedi thing too).
> Of course, but also that his master had a master...and that master had a master
> of his own. We don't need to see them all. The buck has to stop somewhere, and
> it would have been best to stop at Obi-Wan.
It is hard to say.
> It didn't really set the stage for anything though. We get no impression of the
> Sith "lifestyle" or the Sith code through him, so our imagination can do nothing
> to put Anakin into that position. Ok, we learn of the 2-Sith rule, and hence
> know Palpatine will be looking for a second Sith. But there are certainly more
> efficient ways to establish this, and we still don't know why Palpatine wants a
> Sith, so that alone probably would have provided all the explanation we need to
> set the stage for Anakin. As a character in the plot Maul is just a generic
> G.I.Joe baddie. He was put in to scare kids and work in some lightsaber action.
Not at all.
We got one big clue about the Sith. They are patient, perhaps more so
than Jedi. That is what Maul's trip to Tatooine is all about.
We also know they like to use others for their dirty work, through all
of Sidious's plot webs and the like.
As for Palpatine's connection to the Sith ... from the film alone, all
we can do is speculate.
Michael Mierzwa
speculation can be fun
she...@yahoo.com
it? So you admit by your comment that you're not a Star Wars fan?
Does that mean you are just here to stir up trouble saying it sucked?
In article <19990524195831...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
dail...@aol.com (DailyRich) wrote:
> >Please waste as much time as you would like making it as
> >detailed as you would like - I don't plan on reading it anyway.
>
> There's that open-mindedness that we've come to expect from Star Wars
fans...
>
> DailyRich
> "The pee tube is out of alignment."
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
JALefkowit
>I can guarantee you if it was a great flick like ESB, no one would
>give a crap whose "driving vision" was behind it.
sigh... since everybody and their brother seems to have misinterpreted my post,
let me clarify.
I'm not saying you have to like TPM just because it's 100% Lucas. All I'm
saying is that there are a lot of people who didn't like TPM because it didn't
fit what they expected TPM to be -- Joe Blows who spent 20 years eagerly
anticipating "Joe Blow's Phantom Menace" and then were taken aback to get
"George Lucas' Phantom Menace" instead.
Of course we can criticize art, and the artist's "driving vision" that produces
it. I have my own criticisms of TPM, mostly related to what strikes me as
shoddy development at the screenplay level. But it's one thing to criticize
the movie we have based on what's there on the screen (i.e. "the character
development is lacking", a reasonable criticism), and quite another to
criticize based on one's opinion of what SHOULD have been on the screen (i.e.
"why didn't we see more Jedi? This movie sucked because it was about Anakin
and not the Jedi Council.").
To reiterate: I'm NOT saying TPM is above criticism, it most certainly ISN'T.
I'm just saying that we need to be careful to criticize based on what's on the
screen, and not based on what we've been bouncing around in our heads since
ROTJ closed.
Is that less offensive of a notion to everybody? :-)
-- Jason
Jason Lefkowitz
remove NOSPAM from email address to reply
"A statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows, we need more statesmen." (Bloom
County)
JALefkowit
Hey, to whoever's been starting off his posts with this line (I've lost the
beginning of this thread) -- I went and saw the flick for the 2nd time tonight
and finally caught the reference. I hadn't realized you were quoting young
Anakin... I thought you were using "spinning" in the modern US English usage,
meaning basically to distort something for personal gain. So, offended by what
I perceived to be an insult, I huffily denied doing any "spinning", while
totally missing the reference altogether. My apologies for being so clueless!
Hey look, an apology on Usenet. The end times must be nearer than we thought
Ghoul
I don't like typing, so here's the short version. So you won't be
offended I won't direct my comments to you in particular.
If one lowers their standards enough, they'll eat shit and think its
caviar.
To claim that a movie serial whose first (middle) 3 installments each
ranked among the top 10 movies of all time does not entitle the viewer
to a higher level of expectation is illogical.
"He is too old, yes, too old to begin the training"
Ghoul
"You can waste time with your friends after you take care of the
droids"
Ghoul
very long.
The difference between OB-Wans role and Qui-Gon is thus:
OB-Wan takes an adventure longing teen and teaches him about the most
powerful force in the universe. He saves the teen from certain death
aboard the "Death" Star. In spirit, he guides the teen in the most
crucial decision of his life. To trust technology to destroy
technology or to trust the "Force".
Qui-Gon breaks some droids, bets for the life of a human and dies at
the hands of an apprentice Jedi who for most of the battle was
outnumbered 2 to 1.
In this movie I think its George who bet on technology (Special
effects) rather than the Force (Human characters and values)
Guess what happened?
"Then the Emperor has already won"
DailyRich
>it? So you admit by your comment that you're not a Star Wars fan?
>Does that mean you are just here to stir up trouble saying it sucked?
>
Who are you addressing this too? My response was meant to criticize the
previous poster for asking for opinions he was never going to bother to read
anyway, which seems to me the antithesis of the open-minded, reasonable
community of fans SW has grown over the years. I sure hope you meant this for
the person I quoted, because I have been defending TPM pretty vigorously on
this board.
DailyRich
>
>I'm just saying that we need to be careful to criticize based on what's on
>the
>screen, and not based on what we've been bouncing around in our heads since
>ROTJ closed.
Exactly, but sadly, this group is still flooded with "I wanted more Maul" posts
and the like, rather than reasonable critical exchange.
ZapPowBam
>Who are you addressing this too? My response was meant to criticize
>the previous poster for asking for opinions he was never going to bother
>to read anyway, which seems to me the antithesis of the open-minded,
>reasonable community of fans SW has grown over the years.
Brainwashed fanboys who'll buy any sack of menure with the Star Wars
logo slapped on it are also the "antithesis of the open-minded,
reasonable community of fans SW has grown over the years." But please,
before you quote me out of context, I am merely presenting an extreme
example to counterbalance your own extreme example -- which, by the
way, assumes that you know exactly what other people are reading or
what their thought process is when choosing posts to read. You don't.
I don't think its fair for you to get mad at people just because they
can't read every single post on rassm, especially in these peak TPM
discussion days. If someone asks you to help out and identify a certain
post or specific argument, I would hope that you would either oblige
or do nothing at all. Condemning someone for not being able to find
a needle in a haystack is not cool -- but even worse is to assume that
you know that person's plea for help is false, especially when, in my
case, it's 100% sincere.
Remove DVDRULES to respond via e-mail
---------------------------------
"Your 'netiquette' is very poor."
- Joe Kelsey (10/29/98)
---------------------------------
DailyRich
>a needle in a haystack is not cool
How was my post at all condemning? I simply asked a question, that's all.
And I am NOT a brain-washed fanboy, as much as you'd like to believe so so that
your opinion is the only correct one in this group. Look, we disagree, okay?
Big deal. But this does not make me stupid, brain-washed, or any of the other
derogatory adjectives you and several others have used to describe those of us
who enjoyed TPM. I have never once stooped to calling the critics idiots,
non-fans, or anything even slightly offensive. Please show me the same
respect.
ZapPowBam
>>Condemning someone for not being able to find
>>a needle in a haystack is not cool
>
>How was my post at all condemning? I simply asked a question, that's >all.
Again, you seem to be confusing posts. You condemned me for
purposefully avoiding pro-TPM posts I supposedly didn't want to read.
That is simply not the case.
>And I am NOT a brain-washed fanboy, as much as you'd like to believe so
>so that your opinion is the only correct one in this group.
And once again, you attack me for no reason. I never called you a
brainwashed fanboy. Why do you continue to invent this nonsense? I
said that if it's alright for you to bash those disappointed with TPM,
you better be damn well prepared to accept the same level of childish
insults back at you.
>Look, we disagree, okay?
It would be nice if you at least understood the basic points here before
taking a position.
>Big deal. But this does not make me stupid, brain-washed, or any of the
>other derogatory adjectives you and several others have used to
>describe those of us who enjoyed TPM.
I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING! My god, why do you continue to LIE here?
Either you're so punch-drunk from reading so many anti-TPM posts, or
you are INTENTIONALLY fabricating non-truths to make me look bad.
I beg you -- take a deep breath. Step back from this newsgroup for a
moment. Collect your thoughts. And please, stop misrepresenting
everything I say.
>I have never once stooped to calling the critics idiots, non-fans, or
>anything even slightly offensive. Please show me the same respect.
I've been trying to -- but now that you've established a pattern of lies
about my comments, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to do so.
Elizabeth Bartley
Eric Sansoni <sn...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Jake Lloyd was prfect as an enthusiastic, bright-eyed kid. I loved the
> fact that we saw no hint of dark side in him.
Oh ... but we do see a hint of the dark side in him. Think about the
first time he talks with Padme, where she asks "You're a slave?" in a
horrified tone of voice, and he snaps back, "I'm a *person*, and my name
is Anakin." It's easy to sympathize with his reaction, but ... well, his
anger flows too easily, given Padme's tone of voice.
Now, what we *don't* see is any more of the dark side than makes perfect
sense for a bright kid who grew up as a slave. Quite the contrary: given
the circumstances, Anakin is an angel. But the circumstances left their
mark on him, and that will probably come back to haunt him. (Hm. In that
light, the Jedi Council's refusal to train him on the grounds that he's
too old makes more sense.)
> That would have been artificial and hokey. Every terrible person in
> real life was once an innocent kid. It will make for an intriguing and
> more poignant contrast with what we already know comes later. If they
> tried to make him evil, he would come off as a brat, and we would have
> no sympathy or identification with him. The Anakin we see now should be
> the same one as the sweet, sensitive, even jolly old man we see in ROTJ.
More or less agreed, if you substitute "good" for "innocent." Anakin is
not and has never been innocent. I felt they put in a hint of the dark
side in Anakin *without* making him any less of a good person, and I
thought the movie was the better for it and the next two wil be the better
for it.
--
Elizabeth Bartley e-ba...@pobox.com
thePsyc...@webtv.net
-his little kid angry glares at adults
-his self-centeredness
-his emotional coldness
-his boostfulness (while knowing that everything including lives were at
stake -- he pretended to be a winner podracer, when in fact he had never
even finished a race.)
There are things about little Anakin that scream out that he should not
have been trained. That it was indeed maybe too late for him. Not
because he was evil, but because he was a strange little kid fulled with
his own demons,....and a strong ego to boot. Yoda was so right.
It's strange (and cool) how Ani's dark side isn't about evilness, but
human-ness. It's too bad that you have to see TPM more than once to
pick up on Lucas' morality tale. Or I should say, at least I did. So
many people will miss the little things just seeing it once.