T minus one week and counting...

May 12, 2005 4:22 AM

Missing workers? Darth has them."Next Thursday, the Force will be with Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda — the North American work force, that is. Worker absenteeism on the Thursday and Friday opening of Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith could cost U.S. employers a whopping $627-million (U.S.) in the two days, according to one report." Are you going to be playing hooky from work to go see the film? If so, don't bother with phony excuses, get a fail-safe May 19th excuse note!
posted by debralee (66 comments total)

suckers.
posted by sklero at 5:21 AM on May 12, 2005

nerds.
posted by jon_kill at 5:50 AM on May 12, 2005

/assumes darth vader voice/ great post debralee. clever way of bringing this up without being accused of viral marketing. /puts fan back on desk/
posted by three blind mice at 5:59 AM on May 12, 2005

Haha, I forgot about the fan thing.
posted by bwilliams at 6:01 AM on May 12, 2005

I took a week off work for the opening of "Saraha." I had the most kick-ass Dirk Pitt costume ever. Some people think it is just a movie, but I view it as a philosophy on life.
posted by tpl1212 at 6:08 AM on May 12, 2005

Sahara....SaHARa. Curses. Mummy curses.
posted by tpl1212 at 6:09 AM on May 12, 2005

I found this Channel 4 review of Star Wars Episode III pretty funny.
posted by nthdegx at 6:10 AM on May 12, 2005

The only way I'd believe this story was if, by some crazy set of circumstances, the person writing the article somehow had the same boss as the people who made the film.

Now that'd give the article HUGE credibilty and make it COMPLETELY believable.

/sarcasm.
posted by seanyboy at 6:13 AM on May 12, 2005

From the review nthdegx linked:

The Jedis are right butterfingers when it comes to their lightsabers. They also have trouble with ledges, which they are forever hanging off by their fingertips. (Although the Jedi can fly through the air, they are particularly susceptible to ledges, the presence of which - like Kryptonite - suspends their normal powers.)

Hee. This nicely illustrates the problem I've always had: Yoda could lift a spaceship out of the swamp, but these guys are always losing or dropping their weapons and falling off of things?

Yeah, kind of a Star Wars geek, and that wasn't really on topic. Calling in sick to see a movie? Ridiculous. It'll be there tomorrow, and probably for a few days after that. Calling in sick to see a movie the end of which you already know, and which has been known for more than 20 years? Completely negates the "but I want to know first!" argument that might otherwise be put forth.

Me, I think I'll wait for the DVD.
posted by jennaratrix at 6:22 AM on May 12, 2005

I'm going to wait for the bit torrent, so I can watch it while I gets paid, suckas.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:22 AM on May 12, 2005

nthdegx: Thank you. That was the best film review I've read since Brunching SMC did Dungeons and Dragons.

Me, I'm not going to wait for the DVD or the bittorrent. I'll just casually browse the movie over the shoulder of some friend who was unlucky enough to have bought/downloaded it.
posted by brownpau at 6:26 AM on May 12, 2005

This time, I think Fark had it right;

"People skipping work to go see "Revenge of the Sith" costs employers $627 million, according to Department of Made-Up Statistics Pulled out of My Ass"
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 6:27 AM on May 12, 2005

From nthdegx's link: "Star Wars Revenge Of The Sith is not just a bad movie. It is a video game you cannot play. It is a self-indulgent waddle through its own mythology. Unlike the other two prequels, it does not even have the veil of innocence to hide behind. Featuring the casual slaughter of children and climaxing with the grisly dismemberment of a main character, Revenge Of The Sith is a Star Wars movie that is not suitable for kids. So who is it for? Grown-ups? Really? Or just the masochistic adults who want to subject their inner child to another beating from Lucasfilm? "

This reviewer is right on.

Thanks, George Lucas, for taking a big steaming dump on our childhood memories.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:39 AM on May 12, 2005

This thread is worth it simply for the Brunching Shuttcocks shout-out. Man, I miss that site...
posted by mkultra at 6:41 AM on May 12, 2005

I so don't care about this "issue." Except that I'm curious whether this is a PR ruse for the film, or a real "finding."
posted by ParisParamus at 6:41 AM on May 12, 2005

The Channel 4 bit is funny, but in truth, the movie is fantastic. It's easily the best of the prequels, and I'm pretty sure it's the best of all the Star Wars films. My Revenge of the Sith review.
posted by muckster at 7:09 AM on May 12, 2005

I'm going to see the movie, but I can't WAIT for it to be out because that means that all the lincensing will soon be over. Please. Please be over. Please.

I mean, really, if Darth Vader is supposed to be the evilest evil that ever eviled, wtf is Lucas doing diluting the effect of him by letting him hawk ring tones? I know it's an intertainment and not art, but the blatant greed gets to be gag-inducing at times.
posted by papercake at 7:12 AM on May 12, 2005

It's easily the best of the prequels, and I'm pretty sure it's the best of all the Star Wars films.

Isn't this like saying, "I just had the best turd sandwich!"?
posted by dobbs at 7:13 AM on May 12, 2005

With all due respect, muckster, your review sounds like it was written from an outline of talking points handed out by Lucasfilms. It's exactly the kind of review I don't believe a word of, because it's full of breathless hyperbole, talks about critics who didn't like the first movies as if they were on the wrong side of a culture war and can now be dismissed, and isn't critical at all about the film.

I mean, come on -- how can you honestly expect anyone to believe your line about this movie making the first two good, and worth repeat watching? Even if this was the best movie ever made, it could never erase or magically transmorgrify the cinematic somnabulations that were Eps 1 & 2.
posted by papercake at 7:41 AM on May 12, 2005

For the record, I will not be playing hooky from work to go see the movie next week. I doubt I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD, nor download the bittorrent. After sitting through Crapisode I with that uber-vexacious Jar Jar character, I've felt no compulsion since to take in any further releases about the galaxy far, far away.
posted by debralee at 8:02 AM on May 12, 2005

Some gems from muckster's (five page) review:

Almost thirty years later, Lucas pays off the most elaborate setup in film history. He succeeds so completely that anybody who doesn't just love movies but the movies will find reason for celebration —with or without Ewoks. As it turns out, the film also carries a clear message for George Bush's America.

"Star Wars" single-handedly ruined the auteur-driven American cinema of the 70s and catapulted us into the blockbuster age. While this theory is widely accepted, it conveniently overlooks that the hypercommercialization of Hollywood was inevitable. Sooner or later, somebody was bound to strike the motherlode of megabucks, and the suits were going to start mining the riches.

From the opening breathneck action sequence that dwarfs any space battle seen before and could happily serve as the climax for a half dozen lesser movies, "Revenge of the Sith" rewards all of the exposition that slowed down the Episodes I and II.

The broader story of the prequels is based on Roman history and the rise of the Third Reich—the story of a democracy that slips into dictatorship.

It might not be overreaching to call "Star Wars" our first global myth.

Actually, I kind of think it would. All due respect, muckster, 'cuz I'm obviosly not getting anything published anywhere, but exactly how much did George Lucas pay you to write this thing?
posted by jennaratrix at 8:28 AM on May 12, 2005

a series of uneven but always inventive sequels and prequels

Don't mean to be catty, muckster, but you did link to your review, so I have to ask: Is this line meant to read as mealy-mouthed spin to gauze over the fact that the first two prequels were mostly hair-yankingly, stomach-churningly awful with brief flashes of mild amusement? 'Cause it kinda reads like mealy-mouthed spin, and - as papercake has already noted - made me deeply skeptical of your whole review.

Or did you really find it "inventive" - or merely "uneven," for that matter - that "Attack of the Clones" pulled off the feat of bringing to the screen a love-story subplot so clumsy and sexless it makes Miss Piggy's love affair with Kermit seem like Last Tango In Paris?

Lucas fits Episode III into the overall puzzle with the satisfaction of a wunderkid showing off his superior Lego skills

Also: you say this as if it were a good thing. Whereas, you know, even many of Lucas' defenders would probably admit that his plots are a mishmash of stock narratives, and that your Lego metaphor is therefore damningly apt. And you meant "wunderkind."

On preview: I feel a bit like I'm piling on, which in part I guess I am. But I also mean this as at least somewhat constructive criticism. You undermine your own credibility if you pretend the howling chorus of legitimate knocks against Lucas as a filmmaker don't exist. It'd be like reviewing Ishtar II: Electric Desert Boogaloo without acknowledging the fact that the first Ishtar was considered one of the biggest mainstream-film blunders in cinematic history.
posted by gompa at 8:43 AM on May 12, 2005

In retrospect, this final act makes both "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" better films, and rewatching them is now a much more satisfying experience.

Why? How? Is there a half-hour-long Jar Jar Binks torture scene?
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 8:47 AM on May 12, 2005

It's one thing to accuse Muckster of shilling or just being fanboy blinkered, however I would like to discuss the fact that despite the fact that I have been standing in line for the last twenty one years, Stewart Raffill has failed to finish the other 5 films in the mythic Ice Pirates cycle. My Space Herpie costume is positively in rags and tatters.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:51 AM on May 12, 2005

Jennaratrix, would you actually like to argue any of the points in my review, or are you happy just to call me a whore? I stand by all those quotes. Half of them are objectively true, and I'm prepared to argue the rest. Debralee, I liked the first two prequels--but in your eyes, that probably disqualifies me right away.

On preview: take a number, I'll get to you guys in a minute.
posted by muckster at 8:55 AM on May 12, 2005

wtf is Lucas doing diluting the effect of him by letting him hawk ring tones?

Yeah, the dilution bugs me too. Figure Lucas is just squeezing this turd for all it's worth before we all forget it ever happened.
posted by piskycritter at 8:55 AM on May 12, 2005

Ringtones aren't even the worst of it.
posted by Kellydamnit at 8:59 AM on May 12, 2005

Space Herpie? Is that king of like a harpy but with a sexually transmitted disease?

/baffled

Oh, and sign me up to the George Lucas Stole My Childhood class action suit.
posted by longbaugh at 8:59 AM on May 12, 2005

Muckster is absoutely correct -- Revenge of the Sith is a very dark, very beautiful, very sad film that is the best Star Wars installment since The Empire Strikes Back. I wouldn't have believed Sith could be good until seeing it with own eyes. In my cover article on Lucas in the May issue of Wired, FPP'd here previously, I almost perversely avoided the subject of the new film because I assumed it would suck like Menace and Clones. I could barely get through Clones once, but I was riveted by Sith. Having seen it, all the obligatory snark about "George Lucas raped my childhood" seems outdated. Lucas delivered for this one.

Sure, Hayden Christensen belongs on The O.C., not in Star Wars, though his acting has improved somewhat in this one. Natalie Portman seems like a nice young actress and all, but she's still ineffectual in this film. But Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan gives one of the performances of his career, and Ian McDiarmid is brilliant as Palpatine.

I don't agree with everything that muckster says in his fine review: I think it's very possible to enjoy Sith without ever having the urge to see the previous two installments again. I'm not planning on it myself, other than perhaps out of curiosity to see how bad Star Wars actually got before it got good again. But this part of Muckster's review is crucial:

The broader story of the prequels is based on Roman history and the rise of the Third Reich—the story of a democracy that slips into dictatorship. It was easy to overlook the political plot during episodes I and II, when it consisted mainly of confusing talk of trade federation taxation of outlying trade routes, separatists, and the squabbling space aliens who filled the floating pods of the Galactic Senate. But now, it becomes obvious that the strange dealings all amounted to a concerted power grab by Palpatine to become Chancellor, secure emergency powers for himself, and build an army of clones. Using a fabricated threat, he launched a fraudulent war to extend his grip on power. Sound like anyone you know?

With familiar rhetoric, Palpatine declares the end of the Republic: in the name of peace, freedom, democracy, and security, he must accept the burden of power. Devastated, Padme remarks: 'So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.' It is a shockingly serious moment, bitter and real. But the film's bluntest political statement comes when Anakin, lightsaber in hand, paraphrases George W. Bush's first State of the Union Address: 'If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!' Obi-Wan, representing the forces of good, doesn't flip-flop. His damning answer? 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes!' Mark my words: somebody is going to put that on a bumper sticker.

If you read through the early reviews, the American reviewers have avoided the Bush/Palpatine parallels like the plague, with the exception of the Newsweek reviewer, who cautiously makes a reference to "today's wartime climate." The European reviewers have been less shy about pointing out the Bush/Palpatine resonances. (Special request: Yes, yes, I know all about how Star Wars was conceived back in the Watergate era and the new trilogy was launched under Clinton. I'll be happy to have this discussion after y'all have seen the film. The references are quite obvious, but you have to see it first.) I'm still waiting for a major American reviewer to just say it out loud, because I was surprised by how political Sith is, and until somebody like the New York Times -- or Salon -- brings up the subject, reviewers will be afraid of being accused of "liberal bias."

So don't set your Snark Blasters to 11 yet. I think many people will be surprised by how good this film is, and I'm one of the most surprised people of all, having hedged my bets so publicly.
posted by digaman at 9:01 AM on May 12, 2005

OK, gompa, now that's criticism I can deal with. At least you're actually engaging what I wrote. Thanks. And on preview, thank you digaman. I was hoping this would eventually lead to a discussion of the political content.

Or did you really find it "inventive" - or merely "uneven," for that matter - that "Attack of the Clones" pulled off the feat of bringing to the screen a love-story subplot so clumsy and sexless it makes Miss Piggy's love affair with Kermit seem like Last Tango In Paris?

I tried to address that with this paragraph: "Sure, the writing is deliberately campy, and by realistic standards, the acting is often wooden. Like all "Star Wars" movies, "Revenge of the Sith" has some deliciously cheesy moments."

In other words, I adore the love story in AOTC. It's a throwback to an older, pre-method kind of movie making. Of course it's corny as all hell, and I love it that way. "I am haunted by the kiss that you never should have given me"-- that's great stuff if you can dig camp. If I want a realistic love story, I'll watch a French film, not a Sci-Fi spectacular. For the genre, what Lucas has done with Anakin/Padme is 100% appropriate, and it's a ton of fun if you let yourself enjoy it. It's space opera.

I have other problems with prequels. For instance, young Anakin in Phantom Menace is miscast. Both I and II have serious lengths because they're overloaded with exposition--and that's precisely why I think that III redeems them, because it pays off what they couldn't. Jar-Jar Binks isn't half as bad as he's made out to be, and after watching Sith, it's nice to come back to the kiddie innocence of Phantom Menace, and see the elaborate setup of Palpatine's schemes in Clones.

So no, I wasn't trying my hand at "mealy-mouthed spin." I think Attack of the Clones is better than Return of the Jedi; I think that one is "inventive but uneven," no matter what your childhood memories tell you. As for ignoring the "legitimate knocks," I thought I spent the first two pages of the review dealing with those. The Lego bit was supposed to embrace both of the meanings you see competing--yes, it's admirable, but it's also build from stock narratives. I think you're understanding me perfectly there.
posted by muckster at 9:10 AM on May 12, 2005

Ringtones aren't even the worst of it.

When I was a kid, I really liked Darth Vader. But I thought, "If only I could suck sugared water and ice through a nipple on top of his head." Now, George Lucas has made that dream come true. And for that, I thank him.

If I went to see Revenge of the Sith, and I'm not going to, but if I did, I'd fill one of those Darth Dew cups up with whiskey and suck away until I was blind.
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 9:11 AM on May 12, 2005

muckster, I disagree with you on Jar-Jar -- I think he was even more loathsome than the Ewoks -- but thank the Nabooian gods he doesn't get a speaking role in this film (grin).

About the political resonances, I am hesitant to address them any further here until people have seen the film. Certain comments that Lucas made in my online interview with him about the differences between him and Michael Moore certainly become even more interesting after having seen Sith, however.
posted by digaman at 9:16 AM on May 12, 2005

*flips safety on Snark Blaster*

Just a quick question, digaman (because I haven't seen the movie): Did you find this political subtext to be insightful, nuanced, stinging, or otherwise worthy of merit? Or is your praise for it based on the mere fact of its existence in such a mammoth mainstream film?

On preview: Well, I beg to differ on a number of points, there, muckster (Bogart films, for example, are to my mind exemplars of superior pre-method romance, whereas Padme and Anakin interact like eunochs reading random passages from a Harlequin novel), but I've made my points so I won't belabour them.
posted by gompa at 9:17 AM on May 12, 2005

Gompa -- "insightful?" Not really. It's pretty basic stuff about how a top executive vastly extends his powers during a hoked-up wartime emergency. But those are basic lessons that apparently need to be relearned. "Nuanced?" Yes, very. "Stinging?" Yes, very.

I totally understand why people want to boycott Sith. I waited months to see Clones because I couldn't bear to see another Phantom Menace, and it turned out to be nearly as bad. But the world is about to change, folks. Not everyone will like Sith, but when your geeky hardcore friends tell you it's actually good, they're not crazy.
posted by digaman at 9:23 AM on May 12, 2005

"These aren't the employees you're looking for..."
posted by Snowflake at 9:29 AM on May 12, 2005

As a contractor, it would cost me somewhere around $240 to take a day off to see this movie (or for any other reason). I'm interested in seeing it, but losing a day's pay on behalf of doing so would be nuts -- especially since I can go on a weekend or weekday evening.
posted by alumshubby at 9:29 AM on May 12, 2005

Actually muckster I was going to engage point-by-point but I opted not to so as to avoid a) a pile-on and b) this post being all about you and your (self-linked) review. Since both have now happened, and people have jumped in to argue point-by-point where I am unable to because I haven't seen the movie, I'm still not going to do that.

I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you a whore, but your review was so over-the-top and gushing that that is how it reads. Even movies I love beyond all reason, I can find something to criticize.

And for the love of god, you linked this here yourself. If you've spent any time around here at all (and I'm assuming you have without checking your join date), you had to know what was likely going to happen. If someone else had found it, linked it and said "ha, look what muckster said!" I could understand your outrage.

I found your language hyperbolic, your review too positive to be credible, and your attempts to connect what happens in a fictional movie with the state of American politics overly contrived. However, having not seen the movie, I wasn't comfortable saying all that before, as you may actually be right. Mostly I object to your unapologetically biased "review" but didn't really want to say so and start an argument. Feel better?
posted by jennaratrix at 9:32 AM on May 12, 2005

jennaratrix:

your attempts to connect what happens in a fictional movie with the state of American politics overly contrived

Not at all in this case.

People like muckster and I, who have actually seen the film, are in a tough spot. We want to talk about what we know, because everyone's already talking about the film in a vacuum of information other than Lucasfilm hype and pissed-off fanboy sarcasm. It's hard to avoid self-linking.
posted by digaman at 9:38 AM on May 12, 2005

I'm not outraged, jennarratrix. I can take criticism. But your post was merely calling me a shill, without contributing anything. Now you concede that I may be right--there's no way for you to know. Still, you put "review" in quotes and call me "unapologetically biased." Tell you what: an unapologetic opinion is precisely what reviewers get paid for. Get back to me when you've seen the movie.

The only other review I've found that mentions the politics is Ed Gonzales'--but it's a pan and he considers Sith an "anti-Bush diatribe," which isn't quite accurate either.
posted by muckster at 9:42 AM on May 12, 2005

It's not an "anti-Bush diatribe," which is way overstating it. It's an attempt at creating a myth that happens to have deep relevance for now -- as myths tend to do -- and that includes references, both textual and visual, that seem clearly drawn from the current political reality. I can't find a link to it right now, but that brief shot of a plume of smoke rising from a burning building among the glittering towers of Coruscant made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end.
posted by digaman at 9:54 AM on May 12, 2005

Darth is still blogging.
posted by homunculus at 9:58 AM on May 12, 2005

After reading digaman's comments, I might actually go and see this in a theatre (what's the point of watching it on a small screen, anyway?), but only for the political resonances he has located. Those sound interesting. (But I also have to feel a bit grateful that I was too old, when the first movie came out, for it to have had any meaning for me other than as a rather silly (if charming in its way) fantasy, and I never had my childhood hijacked by Wookie sheets and Darth Vader masks and toy lightsabers.)
posted by jokeefe at 10:03 AM on May 12, 2005

Muckster - I shouldn't have implied you were a paid shill, and I apologize for that.

I simply didn't find your review very helpful, and if you're paid to give biased opinions and call them movie reviews, well, you've got a pretty good job. My point was that I would rather see a review that at least addresses a movie's potential weaknesses - dropped plot points, bad dialogue, bad acting, etc. etc. Your review is overwhelmingly positive and addresses issues that can't be argued until the movie is released, or only by other reviewers who have seen the film. It doesn't admit that there is anything wrong with the movie at all - well, maybe there isn't. But I have no way of knowing that, so what is the discussion? The connection between the movie plot and American politics is interesting, and if true, a worthy topic of discussion, but I can't speak to it, as very few of us here can. How can we have a debate about it?

Knowing that a whole bunch of people haven't seen the movie and wouldn't be able to argue your review of the plot point by point, why would you link a review that almost no one could discuss except by criticizing or praising your writing style, and then take offense when that is done?
posted by jennaratrix at 10:25 AM on May 12, 2005

As I said, jenn -- if you yourself had seen this film, thought about it, and then written at length about it, you'd have a hard time not saying anything here when people are posting stuff like "Lucas is taking a big steaming dump on our childhood memories," when he's just made his best film since Empire.

The connection between the movie plot and American politics is interesting, and if true, a worthy topic of discussion

Oh, just wait. :)
posted by digaman at 10:30 AM on May 12, 2005

Jennaratrix, I linked the review because it related to the topic of this thread, and I thought it might be an interesting read. You put your finger on the basic paradox of reviewing--you're trying to make an argument that the reader can't verify until after they've seen the movie. Because I try to keep my reviews as spoiler-free as possible, you're essentially making your case in the dark. In order to be convincing, you have to gain the readers' trust. Clearly, I've failed on that count.

The review is overwhelmingly positive because that's how I received the film. If you look around my site, you'll see that this kind of enthusiasm, especially for a "mainstream" picture, is rare for me. Sith, in my opinion, is an extraordinary film, and I tried to explain why. The issues you mention--dropped plot points, bad dialogue, bad acting--are actually addressed: the plot snaps into place perfectly, and I think the acting and dialogue are in fact appropriate to the genre. I've seen Sith twice, and I'm hard pressed to find negatives. Every now and then, a movie comes along that floors you so completely, you just want to sing its praises. The last time this happened to me was probably "Downfall."

But anyway. I didn't mean to make this about me or my review; I just wanted to add it to the discussion. I understand that you think I'm exaggerating or, as somebody said upthread, "fanboy blinkered." I was hoping the review spoke for itself and explained why I'm this excited about Sith. It's probably the most anticipated movie ever, and I was thrilled to find out that it delivered. For now, you can believe me or you can chose not to. We can have a debate about it after May 19.
posted by muckster at 10:50 AM on May 12, 2005

Even though Episodes I and II were a little disappointing to me, I have lots of faith that III will be good. We've already bought tickets to the first 12:01 am show and I am really excited about it. It's the last movie that I've looked forward too for so long. We're making a whole event of it. I'm a fan girl and not embarrassed of it. But I'm not taking the day off of work. I used up most of my days for the wedding.

I realize that some of you might find my faith in Lucas disturbing...
posted by krisobi at 11:08 AM on May 12, 2005

Muckster, deal, see you then. ;)
posted by jennaratrix at 11:09 AM on May 12, 2005

If I went to see Revenge of the Sith, and I'm not going to, but if I did, I'd fill one of those Darth Dew cups up with whiskey and suck away until I was blind.

Is the Darth-Dew-Cup's bad taste factor ameliorated any if one makes a bong out of it? 'Cause it'd be SO easy to do.
posted by Vervain at 11:21 AM on May 12, 2005

The Dryyyy Cracker wrote:When I was a kid, I really liked Darth Vader. But I thought, "If only I could suck sugared water and ice through a nipple on top of his head." Now, George Lucas has made that dream come true. And for that, I thank him.

Actually, for me the real moment of blissful intersection between youthful fantasy and marketing reality was just the other night when I flipped on the ole Dumont to see Darth Vader strangle the red M&M to death at a conference table. Because when I saw Darth Vader strangle Imperial Officers back in the day, I used to always think, "I wonder if he could do that to an anthropomorphic cartoon candy?"

And now I know.
posted by gompa at 11:43 AM on May 12, 2005

Really? To death? I gotta start watching more TV, 'cause I've been fantasizing about killing the M&M mascots for years now. Like, if you started eating one of them, how much would you have to eat before it died, given that they are (the regular ones, anyway) completely comprised of chocolate and therefore probably don't have any internal organs?

/ derail, but this thread went off the tracks a while back anyway
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 11:55 AM on May 12, 2005

Really? To death?

Uh-oh. Have I started a false rumour? Does the red M&M in fact crawl back to the boardroom table coughing and shaking it off, humbled but not actually deceased? Will false word now spread across the Interweb with the virulence of a rumour of fraudulence at CBS News? Will Lucasfilm be forced to issue a statement condemning me and asserting that Mr. Vader, while certainly evil, harbours no ill will toward M&Ms or the children who love them? Will a scene be inserted, Greedo-like, in which the red M&M moves first for his candy lightsabre, thereby forcing Lord Vader's wrath?

Will I find yet more rhetorical questions with which to further derail this thread? No.
posted by gompa at 12:20 PM on May 12, 2005

It happened rather suddenly...I certainly never had expected it.

But it happened anyway.

I was standing in line for a 21:45 showing of Episode II. I was there more or least to appease my curiosity and my girlfriend. She was excited about the movie, I had been lukewarm.

I saw Episode I at a Midnight showing on the premiere night. It did not live up to my expectations.

So there I am.....standing dutifully in line as she goes off to "powder her nose". I'm there amidst a vast line of fans...in a line that spans the 24 MegadeathPlex. In front of me is a group of overly rowdy children who had been enamored by Jar Jar Binks, and two exasperated and worn out parents. They certainly did not want to be there. Behind me was a large man in a blue tank top....he really should have showered.

The girl comes back through the ever growing throng of moviegoers... as I make eye contact with her...

Something clicked in my brain.


I took her hand and dove into the mass of human chaos.....We made our way against a human tide and approached the "Customer Service" desk. When we arrived I took both tickets and demanded a refund. After a few moments I had two tickets for the 22:00 showing of "About a Boy".

I no longer give Lucas and his ilk any credence, nor any of my hard earned cred.

Besides, I had cooked up far better epic sagas with my friends in High School...adventures that we still get together and play after ten years.

My inner child is not satisfied.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 12:21 PM on May 12, 2005

The only good commercial use of Darth Vader I've seen so far:

Darth vs. Hollywood
posted by A dead Quaker at 12:51 PM on May 12, 2005

Excellent. All of you stay home next week and feel smugly superior at having avoided a craptastic movie. In fact, convince everyone you know that George Lucas's sole desire is to shred any memories of happiness from their childhood and subtly destroy cinema as we know it.

This will mean shorter lines while the rest of us have a good time seeing it without worrying that our cultural elitism has been sullied.




:)
posted by elvolio at 1:45 PM on May 12, 2005

Much more money was lost over Episode 1, I'll bet. Does anyone have semi-factual figures from Eps 1 and 2? Or, hell, Empire and Jedi?
posted by graventy at 1:50 PM on May 12, 2005

I'm sure all the films have made money, if some more than most.

Lucas went through a divorce in the '80s that cost him a considerable chunk of the old-trilogy money -- his ex, Marcia, was not only his wife but a brilliant editor who worked on the films and had every right to consider herself a creative collaborator -- but none of these films have been money-losing propositions.
posted by digaman at 1:54 PM on May 12, 2005

Don't have an outfit yet for next weekend? Look no further.
posted by brain_drain at 1:55 PM on May 12, 2005

Watching Chewie recording ringtones for Singular or Darth Vader trying to convince a lottery winner that "I am your uncle" just churns my stomach. I know those of us who were seven or eight when Star Wars came out have no actual ownership of the franchise and Lucas owes us nothing, but a lot of my childhood revolved around Star Wars. I got the Death Star and a lot of figures for Christmas. When other kids wanted to play cops and robbers or pretend to be superheroes, I wanted to pretend to be Han Solo. Nowadays C3P0 and R2D2 are spokemodels for fast food chains and carbonated beverages. If I had kids maybe I'd appreciate the prequels, but it's been obvious Lucas is still trying to tell his story to those seven or eight year olds and their parents with disposable incomes. I guess it was inevitable. We all gotta grow up sometime.

Vader intimidating the little M&M guys. That was funny.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:02 PM on May 12, 2005

Or did you really find it "inventive" - or merely "uneven," for that matter - that "Attack of the Clones" pulled off the feat of bringing to the screen a love-story subplot so clumsy and sexless it makes Miss Piggy's love affair with Kermit seem like Last Tango In Paris?

What the hell are you guys expecting? The conventional romance story arc is positive and life-affirming and this is the opposite. If they don't look like they're in love, it's because they're not. Anakin is a self-absorbed, hormone-driven kid. He's not in love, he just twists the language of love to his own purposes.

Think of the love story in the same way you look at the endings of Episode I and II: seems happy, but you know it's not. Look at the great, victorious army of clones "for the Republic" at the end of Episode II and listen to the not-quite-imperial-march.
posted by dagnyscott at 2:06 PM on May 12, 2005

I'm not calling in to work, but I'll go see this...
posted by schyler523 at 2:10 PM on May 12, 2005

I'm coming across as giving significantly more of a shit about this than I actually do, but what the hell . . .

If they don't look like they're in love, it's because they're not. Anakin is a self-absorbed, hormone-driven kid.

The problem, dagny, isn't that their love is unconvincing but that their "hormone-driven" lust is so powerfully unconvincing that it has the magical ability not only to make Natalie Portman unsexy (no mean feat, that) but also to drain the residual lust from those who view it like some libidinous black hole.

If I ever needed to lose an erection in polite company, I could do worse than imagining Anakin and Padme rolling around in that field with the three waterfalls in the background. It is the most limp-dick love scene in the most passionless romance I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through.

And the notion that the hormones so glaringly absent from this subplot could somehow play a major role in turning a confused kid into the omnipotent archvillain of an entire universe would be laughable if it weren't so embarassing. Not to mention that it illustrates the comical implausibility that this kid's got enough mojo in him to become Vader in the first place. Bad guys - even ostensibly sexless half-cyborgian ones - have got to have at least some swagger, and there's a hundred times more sexual charge in Vader's interrogation of Leia than there is in Anakin's putative seduction of Padme.
posted by gompa at 2:50 PM on May 12, 2005

digiman: As I said, jenn -- if you yourself had seen this film, thought about it, and then written at length about it, you'd have a hard time not saying anything here when people are posting stuff like "Lucas is taking a big steaming dump on our childhood memories," when he's just made his best film since Empire.

Perhaps part of the problem is that Empire wasn't as great as it's cult following wants to believe.

For that matter, I think that much of the hatred developed around Episode I and II are primarily due to the massive nostalgia built up around Star Wars. Most of us don't really remember Star Wars, but the experience of having seen Star Wars at an age when we lacked the sophistication to notice the shifts in genre, wooden dialogue with worse delivery, and big plot holes. Who can compete with that?

I don't think that Episodes IV-VI are as good as is claimed, and I don't think that Episodes I and II are as bad as is claimed. I'd much rather sit through Phantom Menace again than The Rock or Armageddon as examples of 2d blockbusters. Menace at least had one of the better fight scenes in the series.

gompa: Not to mention that it illustrates the comical implausibility that this kid's got enough mojo in him to become Vader in the first place. Bad guys - even ostensibly sexless half-cyborgian ones - have got to have at least some swagger, and there's a hundred times more sexual charge in Vader's interrogation of Leia than there is in Anakin's putative seduction of Padme.

I agree about young Anakin, but that scene of Vader confronting Lea strikes me as one of the worse bits of camp in the series. The only reason it works is that mask, because bob forbid, if those lines were delivered with any facial expression Star Wars would be shown in bars at midnight with an audience participation call-and-response over it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:57 PM on May 12, 2005

As a long time fangirl (saw Star Wars at a drive-in in the summer of 1977) and in spite of my disappointment with I and II, I'm going to see III hell or high water. It's just one of those things I have to see to the bitter end. However, muckster's and digaman's reviews have given me a wee bit of hope that RotS (ha!) won't stink.
posted by deborah at 5:23 PM on May 12, 2005

Watching Chewie recording ringtones for Singular or Darth Vader trying to convince a lottery winner that "I am your uncle" just churns my stomach.

But is it for any other reason than you're older than you were during the first Star Wars World Tour? The first movies were marketed every bit as relentlessly as the prequels have been. Different times, different sales strategies. I'm sitting here staring at a near complete collection of Star Wars Burger King glasses (damn shipping breakage) (nostalgic aside: wasn't it pretty cool when you used to be able to get glasses and shit with your value meals?) And then there were the underoos. Plus tons of other stuff I'm probably forgetting (I lived overseas in a non-commercial showing country during that stretch, so maybe I don't have a good line on how much it was advertised stateside, but on the other hand I do know how much the movies and anything connected to them were lodged in my frontal lobe with almost no outside influence, so that's saying something right there.)

Criticism of the movies is valid (Phantom blew goats. I took the advice that I think I read here that if you watch Clones and just fast-forward through the "love" scenes it ain't that bad, which is a fairly good suggestion) but I just can't see getting all worked up about the tie-ins.
posted by Cyrano at 5:28 PM on May 12, 2005

I agree with much of what you say, Gompa. Hayden has one quality that makes him absolutely perfect for the role, which is why I imagine he got it: he can look either twink pretty or unnervingly ugly, depending on the emotional context. But he clearly never got a handle on acting the role, though he's much better in Sith than the previous two.

Natalie, I dunno what to say. She's also better in this installment, but whenever I hear that voice I think "Long Island" rather than "Naboo," though she's apparently from Israel or somewhere.

But yeah. There's more subliminal eros in the emotional seduction of Anakin by Palpatine than there is in the scenes between Anakin and Padme.
posted by digaman at 6:01 PM on May 12, 2005

"But is it for any other reason than you're older than you were during the first Star Wars World Tour?"

Well Cyrano, with 20/20 hindsight I can see now that back when I was a kid I was just being a sheep buying all the Star Wars stuff (or rather convincing my parents to buy all that stuff) and thirty years later I feel it unethical to blatantly use these characters as shills or tools for corporate America. I say I feel that. My brain knows it's irrational to feel that way, but that doesn't change the heart. I can't help but feel if I buyg a ticket next week, or even buy it when it comes out on DVD, I'm still being that same stupid kid that I was in 1977. Maybe that's a good thing? Who shouldn't reward their inner child every so often?

As for the quality, I feel the prequels, and perhaps all six films, have been built rather cookie cutter. There were a lot of variables that had been initiated by the first trilogy, characters and settings and plot twists that had already been established. Lucas was kinda painted into a corner. There were questions that had to be answered in these prequels, and there were also some new ideas that either Lucas or people working under his employ had injected into the project and all this stuff got put together over countless meetings and Lucas put the plot structure together like a jigsaw puzzle, so when the end result didn't blow people away I wasn't surprised. A couple years ago I saw Episodes one, three and four relatively close together, and though I feel the latter two are better made than Phantom, when one looks at them objectively there's really no dramatic change in quality from a writing standpoint. Lucas has never pretended to be as great a writer as Arthur Miller or Tennessee Williams. His work is more like Neil Simon, or some of William Shakespeare's weaker Comedies. They're formulaic with thin characters and predictable plot structures.

Lucas was just trying to tell entertaining stories. A fantasy in space. He never expected it to get as dissected as it has been. Frankly I'm surprised it's withstood all the attention.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:41 PM on May 12, 2005