What's so great about ESB???

igor · January 17, 2005

Why don't you try again. I tried alot of times before getting it. Ultimately it's about what one wants from the movie afterall. As for Ewan being wooden????

JoeinAR · January 17, 2005

Igor, Alex(who I disagree with often, but not this time) isn't going to get it, because there is nothing to get, the acting is horrendous, abysmal, insert your own negatative adjectives, its a poorly acted film. Some blame should go to Lucas, but most should go to the actors who choose for whatever reasons to not rise above the material.

igor · January 17, 2005

well i will not argue for the sake of arguing. This is how i found out that I liked the films, what can I say, nothing more nothing less... Read my previous large post and try it. Nothing to lose.

Well. At least I get to enjoy two to three more movies than the average member in this messageboard, what can I say...

Igor

JoeinAR · January 18, 2005

don't pat yourself on the back just yet, I am sure there are films you dislike that Alex and I do, and despite what most think both Alex(I suspect at least) and myself will see Rots, even if we are skeptical about its success as a film.

igor · January 18, 2005

It is that i meant ROTJ and the prequels up to now. But maybe i did anticipate myself a bit.

Chris ChrusherComix · January 18, 2005

Funny. Every bad thing that people say about Star Wars, I feel the same about Harry Potter... no, worse. How any full-grown adult can like Potter is quite odd to me. The only examples of such people I have is online.

Regardless, I read the script to ROTS, and I'm betting on that it will

almost certainly be the best of the prequels and has a pretty decent shot at

contending for he overall best. It all depends on how the story comes up on

film, because the story has ALOT of potential. Lucas outdid himself with that part of it,

and it appears to me as if he let loose in this "final" chapter. Only time will tell if it translates

well to the movie screen. Editing and acting can mess it up, but no matter what, we are going to have an instant classic John Williams score for it... and isn't that the most important thing afterall? :pukeface:

Luke Skywalker · January 19, 2005

JoeinAR · January 19, 2005

has a pretty decent shot at
contending for he overall best.

you are either on drugs, insane, or you read something different from what I read, because that isn't worthy of best as long as Star Wars or ESB exist.

A24 · January 19, 2005

has a pretty decent shot at
contending for he overall best.

I haven't read anything, but except for blind, maniacal SW fans, few believe Lucas is still "capable". What magic did you spot in the prequels that leads you to believe there is still hope for a superior movie? How much more lousy prequels does it take for you to draw the same conclusions the rest of us have already a long time ago?

----------------

Alex Cremers

QMM · January 19, 2005

Lucas seemed to be "capable" with TPM at first albeit not nearly as much as he used to. AOTC however showed he has nothing left.

Max-Who celebrates his birthday today

Romão · January 19, 2005

Some of you can bitch, and bitch, and bitch, and bitch...

#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal · January 19, 2005

You seem to be part of the problem.

Romão · January 19, 2005

How come?

JoeinAR · January 19, 2005

whose the biggest bitcher, the bitchers, or the ones bitching about the bitchers?

Romão · January 19, 2005

You guys sure devote a lot od time and energy to something you despise. I only had tow posts in the star trek thread and that was enough.

Jeshopk · January 19, 2005

I think the prequels have their own virtues.

The classic trilogy had more solid architecture, archetypes, and somewhat better acting. The special effects were more organic by a little bit, and they weren't plagued with the post-score editing bug.

I say that Empire Strikes Back is so good a film that it actually makes Attack of the Clones and Phantom Menace better films than they would be on their own. If you just set aside expectations and look at the films as a whole story, there's lots of brain candy there.

The Prequels contain a political fable that might be lost on 50 percent of the American population. I know that depending on which political party you're with, you might take different things away from the prequels. I don't want to discuss politics, but I want to give an example. For instance, many people on the Jedi Council boards fail to see why Anakin's tusken massacre was wrong. Usually these are the people who agree with capital punishment and are pro-war. I think for many, the prequels might just be too "California" shall I say, in their mindset, which I could see effectively dampening the drama and sense of impending doom that the Prequels suggest.

Personally, I relate alot to young ObiWan's character, as well as young Anakin's character. I find QuiGon to be a great mentor figure, and I find prequel Yoda to be a very complex character in the prequels. It is interesting to watch his loyalty to the Republic blind his clarity. His tale seems to be the antithesis of the classic Taoist tales in which a Taoist adept (usually with powers comparable to the Jedi) would deny place in government due to its ability to cloud judgement and mind. We see that conflict arise when Yoda sets aside concerns over a Clone Army to serve the Republic and "save" his friends, in the ultimate act of attachment. Much is made of Anakin's inability to set his personal feelings aside, while we see Yoda silently endorsing a Clone Army he knows has shady origins for the purpose of preserving the lives of those he knows. He also does this when he allows Dooku to escape while saving Obiwan and Anakin again. But Yoda also may be preserving the life of Anakin due to his status as "the Chosen one." These are things we are let to fill in some of the blanks, always a good thing in a film.

This aside, the acting is usually not as good as Empire Strikes Back (at times it is), but is usually about as good as Episodes 4 and 6.

The Computer effects detach us a bit from the universe created in the originals, but I've always been willing to suspend my disbelief to reap the other riches contained within. It would be interesting to see an explanation as to the all human Empire. Maybe something alluding to racism in the Empire could explain that.

Lurker · January 19, 2005

The Prequels contain a political fable that might be lost on 50 percent of the American population. I know that depending on which political party you're with, you might take different things away from the prequels. I don't want to discuss politics, but I want to give an example. For instance, many people on the Jedi Council boards fail to see why Anakin's tusken massacre was wrong. Usually these are the people who agree with capital punishment and are pro-war. I think for many, the prequels might just be too "California" shall I say, in their mindset, which I could see effectively dampening the drama and sense of impending doom that the Prequels suggest.
Personally, I relate alot to young ObiWan's character, as well as young Anakin's character. I find QuiGon to be a great mentor figure, and I find prequel Yoda to be a very complex character in the prequels. It is interesting to watch his loyalty to the Republic blind his clarity. His tale seems to be the antithesis of the classic Taoist tales in which a Taoist adept (usually with powers comparable to the Jedi) would deny place in government due to its ability to cloud judgement and mind. We see that conflict arise when Yoda sets aside concerns over a Clone Army to serve the Republic and "save" his friends, in the ultimate act of attachment. Much is made of Anakin's inability to set his personal feelings aside, while we see Yoda silently endorsing a Clone Army he knows has shady origins for the purpose of preserving the lives of those he knows. He also does this when he allows Dooku to escape while saving Obiwan and Anakin again. But Yoda also may be preserving the life of Anakin due to his status as "the Chosen one." These are things we are let to fill in some of the blanks, always a good thing in a film.

Pretty deep stuff for movies the author says are for kids! Another sign that they are just terribly misguided.

Neil

Morlock · January 19, 2005

The fact that people find deep stuff in a film that the author does not acknowledge doesn't reflect on the author. People can find something in anything.

MrScratch · January 19, 2005

Pretty deep stuff for movies the author says are for kids! Another sign that they are just terribly misguided.

Why? The Wizard of Oz was a book about economics and monetary policy.

Jeshopk · January 19, 2005

The fact that people find deep stuff in a film that the author does not acknowledge doesn't reflect on the author. People can find something in anything.

The author ackowledges some of these things in interviews and commentary, as well as within the dialogue of the film itself. My take on the Taoist fables was just that, my take. But its not "reading into it" to find the political aspects, its just watching it. Perhaps its over some people's heads, which would mean its not as populist as the previous trilogy, but I feel that if George was going to make new Star Wars movies, he might as well tread new territory.

igor · January 19, 2005

I agree

igor · January 19, 2005

Neil. Look for the deeper stuff. It isn't as simple as that, kids movies. Lucas works for years on this project just for kids?!

#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal · January 19, 2005

Igor.

Lucas himself has claimed that the SW films are just childrens movies.

Elmo Lewis · January 19, 2005

"Childrens' movies" doesn't imply shallow.

Morlock · January 19, 2005

"Childrens' movies" doesn't imply shallow.

"Childrens' movie" doesn't mean shallow, but for most people, it does indeed imply shallow.

Romão · January 20, 2005

Lucas has also said many times that the SW are more than meets the eye. I find the plot of the prequels to be fascinanting, with many unexpected turns (and I'm not talking about big twists).

igor · January 20, 2005

But if you want to insist that they are shallow movies, you can watch them from that angle too. Im not joking. But the fact is, you are missing on so much more!!

A24 · January 20, 2005

But if you want to insist that they are shallow movies, you can watch them from that angle too. Im not joking. But the fact is, you are missing on so much more!!

What fact? Like what? What do we not understand? What subtext are we missing here?

igor · January 20, 2005

Well its not what you do not understand, it is more like what you don't want to open up to. I already wrote a lengthy post on this topic on the previous page if you want to reread it.

For example, I agree with you when you say the acting is not stellar, but I differ on the point of view. The acting is appropriate for this type of movie. The meat is in what complements the acting, the whole. When I got that, the acting appeared smaller in its contribution to the whole concept of the picture. That is another point i liked to make. Ultimately it is a story about people, but it is also a story about the images these people project, about ideas, ultimately about general abstractions one can deduce from these characters and their actions. I mean if star wars was only bang bang I wouldn't be saying this.

A24 · January 20, 2005

Well its not what you do not understand, it is more like what you don't want to open up to. I already wrote a lengthy post on this topic on the previous page if you want to reread it.
That is another point i liked to make. Ultimately it is a story about people, but it is also a story about the images these people project, about ideas, ultimately about general abstractions one can deduce from these characters and their actions.

I understand what you're saying. However, I think your words are far more true for the first two films of the Original Trilogy. In Star Wars and Empire there was a underlying myth-creating process at work. And although the narrative didn't speak about it, the process was present and palpable, but it took place under the film's surface, without ever being obtrusive and that's how it really should be. The prequels are doing exactly the opposite. They visually and audibly try to create the myth. The process of myth-creating is put in the foreground. It's forced upon us. That's why I supposedly (according to you) don't open up to them. That's why the Prequels will never have the same status as the Original Trilogy.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Mr. Breathmask · January 20, 2005

Alex, you could not have said it better.

There's too much movies trying to create myths like that these days anyway. It's not beneath the surface anymore, it's thrown in your face (Matrix, anyone?).

- Marc

Romão · January 20, 2005

I don' think the mythology in the PT is thrown at your face, at all.

#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal · January 20, 2005

Listen to Alex, his words are wise.

Miz · January 20, 2005

The Prequels contain a political fable that might be lost on 50 percent of the American population. I know that depending on which political party you're with, you might take different things away from the prequels. I don't want to discuss politics, but I want to give an example. For instance, many people on the Jedi Council boards fail to see why Anakin's tusken massacre was wrong. Usually these are the people who agree with capital punishment and are pro-war. I think for many, the prequels might just be too "California" shall I say, in their mindset, which I could see effectively dampening the drama and sense of impending doom that the Prequels suggest.
Personally, I relate alot to young ObiWan's character, as well as young Anakin's character. I find QuiGon to be a great mentor figure, and I find prequel Yoda to be a very complex character in the prequels. It is interesting to watch his loyalty to the Republic blind his clarity. His tale seems to be the antithesis of the classic Taoist tales in which a Taoist adept (usually with powers comparable to the Jedi) would deny place in government due to its ability to cloud judgement and mind. We see that conflict arise when Yoda sets aside concerns over a Clone Army to serve the Republic and "save" his friends, in the ultimate act of attachment. Much is made of Anakin's inability to set his personal feelings aside, while we see Yoda silently endorsing a Clone Army he knows has shady origins for the purpose of preserving the lives of those he knows. He also does this when he allows Dooku to escape while saving Obiwan and Anakin again. But Yoda also may be preserving the life of Anakin due to his status as "the Chosen one." These are things we are let to fill in some of the blanks, always a good thing in a film.
Pretty deep stuff for movies the author says are for kids! Another sign that they are just terribly misguided.
Neil

Misguided is the kind of language we should be using when 'critiqueing' the prequels - not prequel-bashing.

As for Jeshopk's point - it's a very good one. But sadly it's not what the prequels currently are: they could have been an emotional, charged and increasinly-dark character-driven rollercoaster that inevitably and enthrallingly spirals towards the Civil War we all know. And I believe there are script-writers out there who could have conveyed those character motivations and dynamics in the 2 hours of each film, comfortably and with a great deal of tact. Unfortunately, what Jeshopk writes about is not present in the films we know: it can be extrapolated from the events the characters are in, but not at all inferred from their lines or acting. Which is a grand shame.

igor · January 20, 2005

Miz, what you describe as the prequels' failed potential is in fact what they are to a lot of us. Moreover extrapolating additional things from the films is part of the imaginative process.

As for Alex, I'd like to know how the mythmaking process is 'forced' upon us, and if it is so, what is theproblem? But before I really want to know what you mean with that post. I could easily argue that Ben's monologues in the first half of Ep.4 and the increasingly mentioned mythology in it are an attempt to force the FORCE on us, but that is beyond the point for me. I see it as exposition.

Miz · January 20, 2005

Miz, what you describe as the prequels' failed potential is in fact what they are to a lot of us. Moreover extrapolating additional things from the films is part of the imaginative process.

Some kids figuring out how to find a lost planet; Mace Windu stroking his chin in a Venetian-blinded room; Yoda looking permanently quizzical; JW's mystery motif; a short, forced script-byte about faith in the Republic and one about democracy; and Obi-Wan's trundling magical mystery tour do not signify, to me, a dark, spiralling plot that's gathering-momentum towards a Civil War.

Infact, the only part I feel was at all cinematically challenging was the remote, clinical utopia of Kamino, but the script was so weak that MacGregor couldn't hope to convey any sense of out-of-depth unease or earnest investigation.

I'm not asking for the films to shove this 'inevitability' I'm talking of in my face, I'm asking that it be presented to us by the actions and motivations of the characters, not through inference of underlying events drawn from a rather mundane sequence of very 'Star Wars' events.

Jeshopk · January 20, 2005

Misguided is the kind of language we should be using when 'critiqueing' the prequels - not prequel-bashing.

Probably more interesting, but prequel bashing also helps cut to the skinny for those who dislike them. Its good to see some conversation going on about it anyway.

As for Jeshopk's point - it's a very good one. But sadly it's not what the prequels currently are: they could have been an emotional, charged and increasinly-dark character-driven rollercoaster that inevitably and enthrallingly spirals towards the Civil War we all know.

I guess that's a matter of opinion, because I think that's pretty much what it is. The character-driven part kicks in in AOTC and I presume will continue in ROTS. TPM was more exposition, and not as character driven, but it succeeded in introducing us to the Jedi ideals and the central conflict, which are a key aspects of enhancing the drama in later films. I'd say that our point of view was more remote in TPM. We weren't as close to the characters as in later films, as we were observing them from the outside. This is also true of A New Hope.

And I believe there are script-writers out there who could have conveyed those character motivations and dynamics in the 2 hours of each film, comfortably and with a great deal of tact.

I understand what you mean, and I agree that other writer/directors could have handled the characters' lines and acting more "realistically", but there is something unique and antiquated about the way Lucas does it that I find is a welcome addition to modern film. He uses dialogue very deliberately, and each line has a purpose, or a forshadowing, or an allusion to another aspect of another film in the series. The purpose of his dialogue is not just to characterize, but to draw connections. He is sort of a writer who is so inside his own head and world I think, that he usually sacrifices the very thing most writers want to achieve, which is widespread accessibility. That is not to say that it isn't accessible to some of us, but it is certainly not as relatable as the OT dialogue. The OT characters (Luke and Han at least) talked in a more common way, and they were not stifled by being Jedi or public servants. They were either misfits or Rebels. Having heard what some people who have seen the prequels before seeing the OT have said, they don't have as much of a problem reading the PT characters because there is no comparison process. Comparing the feeling given by the writers, directors, and actors of the other films will detract attention from the film you are watching. And all one will come up with is a feeling of unfulfillment.

Unfortunately, what Jeshopk writes about is not present in the films we know: it can be extrapolated from the events the characters are in, but not at all inferred from their lines or acting. Which is a grand shame.

One of the reasons it is a movie and not a novel is because the situations action and events and visuals are just as much part of the storytelling process as the dialogue. As for the lines and acting not inferring anything, I just plain disagree.

QuiGon and ObiWan's acting and dialogue in TPM infer that they are cool and collected, non emotional mostly, and friends, given to a little annoyance. Their mentor relationship leads to tensions, due to the power structure there. They are on another plane of human existence, speaking of the living force, and they fight without emotion. It is clear that Ewan wishes to go further than he is, feels he is ready to be on his own. This forshadows Anakin?s more exaggerated form of impatience, and perhaps explains where he got a bit of his arrogance. In fact ObiWan is certainly arrogant, as he refers to the people helping him as ?pathetic lifeforms.? Later, it is clear that Ewan gives in to anger and aggression to defeat maul, due to his acting. At this moment, he is defeated and only through cool rational thinking can he succeed.

Anakin in TPM's acting and dialogue infer a young imbecile who has no idea what he is capable of. He is clearly a tool of the Force, and even his mistakes are under some control by the force. He blows up the control ship by pressing the wrong button and is quite oblivious as to what is guiding him. Being a tool in TPM, it is more the dialogue about him that defines him, as he is not capable of decyphering anything that is happening himself. He is clearly attached to his mother and to QuiGon, and feels helpless when both are taken away from him. We can also clearly see that he feels a great affinity for Padme, and we can reason that given circumstances, she may be a sort of mother figure for him as well (as soon as he is ripped away from his mother, he bonds with her on the ship, longing for feminine comfort), which eventually culminates in her unconditional forgiveness of him when he commits an attrocity.

Amidala's acting and dialogue (as well as age and status) in TPM infers that she is an elite pacifist. She is against all types of violence, and thoughts of death weigh heavily on her. She is isolated and curious about other types of people, but has been mired in a young aristocracy. She is a curiosity, like a young Maharajah. She is headstrong, but her personal relationships have suffered for her choice to serve the world instead of her self, and in that way, she speaks diplomatically rather than from the heart most of the time. Even when she is emotional, she holds back and retains a courtly approach. She, like Anakin, have been deprived of childhood and personal freedom, which makes their future love affair seem the result of impulse and years repression.

I could go on and on and on, and this is not the result of repeated viewing. These observations were first impressions which made the films rich to watch. I did feel a disorientation as the characters were very different from the OT characters, but as you know by now, I certainly didn't feel the films were as empty as some say they are.

igor · January 20, 2005

Nice post Jeshopk.

Miz, well if you want more of an account of what is happening in their minds, and I am dead serious, look at the colors behind them, the menacing clouds towards the end of AOTC (this is just one among many examples), but even more important, FEEL them, and when you do, you will find out Aotc is a very atmospheric, ambiguous, unbalancing, perplexing film. George Lucas has the ability to control anything within the frame, and, adding the fact that he is quite meticulous about these things and that he worls 3 years to make one of those films, I feel quite safe to say that there is not much coincidence in there. I mean do you consider TPM light?? Look at the scene where Anakin is being tested by the Jedi council. Look behind Sam Jackson, notice the sun set after the scene. This is planned. The way the events are presented are anything but in your face, and I like that subtility. Although they does not lack in directness, the prequels are Star Wars OT internalized, if I may say it. It is a different way of presenting emotions