Xishi de Fanji
June 9, 2005 8:14 AM Subscribe
As others see us: A Chinese review of 'Revenge of the Sith'.
For those of you who don't know, George Lucas' latest oeuvre has bombed in mainland China's box-offices - $38.5M there, vs. the $312 it has earned domestically. A cultural difference, an error in Jos. Campbell's theory, or just something else, altogether? In any case, the film and it's apparent failure over there have made for some interesting reviews (last one via).
For those of you who don't know, George Lucas' latest oeuvre has bombed in mainland China's box-offices - $38.5M there, vs. the $312 it has earned domestically. A cultural difference, an error in Jos. Campbell's theory, or just something else, altogether? In any case, the film and it's apparent failure over there have made for some interesting reviews (last one via).
Ok, no C-3P0 or Darth.... but why wouldn't the Republicans want to take cues from Yoda?
"Do or do not. There is no try"
"You must unlearn what you have learned."
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
"Wars not make one great."
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. "
"Mudhole? Slimy? My party this is." (paraphrased)
etc.
Dunno, some pretty good life lessons there.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:25 AM on June 9, 2005
"Do or do not. There is no try"
"You must unlearn what you have learned."
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
"Wars not make one great."
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. "
"Mudhole? Slimy? My party this is." (paraphrased)
etc.
Dunno, some pretty good life lessons there.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:25 AM on June 9, 2005
Uh, vhsiv, that "bombed" link notes RITS "earned only $3.37 million in its first week." The $38.5 million figure you cited is apparently the total for Titanic's mainland China take. Seems a bit early to be calling RITS a flop, especially if Titanic is your yardstick for success in Chinese theaters.
posted by mediareport at 8:29 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by mediareport at 8:29 AM on June 9, 2005
*raises arms, turns face to sky*
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
ROTS, not RITS.
posted by mediareport at 8:30 AM on June 9, 2005
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
ROTS, not RITS.
posted by mediareport at 8:30 AM on June 9, 2005
Smedleyman beat me to it. If we could have a politician who embodied the determination of Darth Vader along with the wisdom of Yoda and the humility of C-3PO, the US might not be an international laughingstock.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:31 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:31 AM on June 9, 2005
That first link doesn't look like a Chinese review. It's a Reuters story by a guy named Steve Gorman, reprinted on a Chinese site.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:33 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:33 AM on June 9, 2005
The only cultural difference I can see from these articles is that the chinese don't have the money to see Star Wars in the theater. Frankly I don't blame them. I wouldn't spend a whole day's wage on Revenge of the Sith either.
posted by BartFargo at 8:37 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by BartFargo at 8:37 AM on June 9, 2005
Maybe they just don't give a Sith. (couldn't resist)
posted by clevershark at 8:48 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by clevershark at 8:48 AM on June 9, 2005
That first link doesn't look like a Chinese review. It's a Reuters story by a guy named Steve Gorman, reprinted on a Chinese site.
Beat me to it. I would have been very interested to read what the link purported to be, but there is no there there.
Boo.
posted by norm at 8:49 AM on June 9, 2005
Beat me to it. I would have been very interested to read what the link purported to be, but there is no there there.
Boo.
posted by norm at 8:49 AM on June 9, 2005
Yoda is clearly a hypocrite, in Ep II when using the force to keep a tank from landing on and crushing Anakin after Anakin has been knocked out by Dooku he clearly struggles, yet in EP V he gives Luke shit about the size of his X-Wing not mattering when he struggles to pick it up using the force.
Ethically Yoda also seems to have no problem exploiting brain washed since birth clones as his army/cannon fodder.
Plus, does Yoda help any of the other Jedi/rebel personnel to achieve immortality or does he just save it for Vader at the end of Ep 6?
What is it you want politicians to learn from him?
posted by biffa at 8:52 AM on June 9, 2005
Ethically Yoda also seems to have no problem exploiting brain washed since birth clones as his army/cannon fodder.
Plus, does Yoda help any of the other Jedi/rebel personnel to achieve immortality or does he just save it for Vader at the end of Ep 6?
What is it you want politicians to learn from him?
posted by biffa at 8:52 AM on June 9, 2005
Double-whoops. For some reason I thought that CNN would have more integrity than to buy a Reuters story that had already been sold somewhere in China - or maybe CNN bought it first. CNN should be sending thier own reporters to report on this stuff, anyway.
And sorry for the box-office gaffe - IMDb.com was already reporting the movie as a 'flop' on the mainland, and I took my cues from them, even though it looks as though I could use some reading comprehension - too many $-signs and relative conceptions of 'failure'.
posted by vhsiv at 8:52 AM on June 9, 2005
And sorry for the box-office gaffe - IMDb.com was already reporting the movie as a 'flop' on the mainland, and I took my cues from them, even though it looks as though I could use some reading comprehension - too many $-signs and relative conceptions of 'failure'.
posted by vhsiv at 8:52 AM on June 9, 2005
Maybe all of the Chinese nerds who hate the newer SWs just kept quiet instead of banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how much they hated them..?
posted by i_cola at 8:56 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by i_cola at 8:56 AM on June 9, 2005
Wow, three-hundred dollars is a frightening amount of money. Just think about what George Lucas could accomplish with that kind of wad in his pocket. *thinks* *shudders*
posted by Plutor at 8:59 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by Plutor at 8:59 AM on June 9, 2005
The only cultural difference I can see from these articles is that the chinese don't have the money to see Star Wars in the theater. Actually, foreign films are priced according to Chinese means in China. They see plenty of US films there.
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:01 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by QuietDesperation at 9:01 AM on June 9, 2005
An interesting tidbit. My sister is currently teaching over in China, and has mentioned to me how expensive it is to see a movie in the theater over there. I'm not exactly sure what the costs work out to, but I believe it's something like the equivalent of $30 US for two people to see a movie, in a country where many people earn $100 a month. Also, Sith is already available as a $1.00 DVD on the street...
posted by killdevil at 9:06 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by killdevil at 9:06 AM on June 9, 2005
"That first link doesn't look like a Chinese review. It's a Reuters story by a guy named Steve Gorman, reprinted on a Chinese site."
(Capture review text; run through Babelfish - English to Chinese... pausssssssse... confront screenful of Chinese characters, signed off by Steve Golman, Leutels.)
That was the problem.
Hope this helps.
posted by Mike D at 9:07 AM on June 9, 2005
(Capture review text; run through Babelfish - English to Chinese... pausssssssse... confront screenful of Chinese characters, signed off by Steve Golman, Leutels.)
That was the problem.
Hope this helps.
posted by Mike D at 9:07 AM on June 9, 2005
By Steve Gorman (Reuters)
Editor Li Qing
It's not even a review.
posted by delmoi at 9:16 AM on June 9, 2005
Editor Li Qing
It's not even a review.
posted by delmoi at 9:16 AM on June 9, 2005
"Star Wars" creator George Lucas has insisted that his themes of corrupted democracy and the rise of a fear-mongering tyrant were outlined decades ago, informed by Watergate and the Vietnam era, as well as Hitler's rise to power, rather than today's politics.
I'm getting rather tired of journalists who seem unable to tell the difference between the concept of "outlining" a script and writing one. Yes, the skeletal outline of Sith's narrative arc has been around for decades. But the script was written in 2002-2003, and the Bush echoes were intentional, as Lucas hinted in his comments at Cannes: "As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things... I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will waken people to the situation."
posted by digaman at 9:21 AM on June 9, 2005
I'm getting rather tired of journalists who seem unable to tell the difference between the concept of "outlining" a script and writing one. Yes, the skeletal outline of Sith's narrative arc has been around for decades. But the script was written in 2002-2003, and the Bush echoes were intentional, as Lucas hinted in his comments at Cannes: "As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things... I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will waken people to the situation."
posted by digaman at 9:21 AM on June 9, 2005
Yoda is clearly a hypocrite...
Episodes I-III don't count. That wasn't Yoda.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:54 AM on June 9, 2005
Episodes I-III don't count. That wasn't Yoda.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:54 AM on June 9, 2005
There are actually much more interesting contradictions in Yoda's character, biffa. The weight thing isn't necessarily hypocrisy, just a teacher making things seem easier for the sake of making a point. What's curious about that scene is that Yoda lets Dooku get away in order to save his friends, and then in Episode V warns Luke not to go to Bespin... to save his friends. The same theme -- duty vs friendship -- pops up several other times.
There are other changes in Yoda's teachings. Luke is being trained very differently from Anakin. It seems that Yoda has learned all sorts of lessons from his failure in III, and he and Obi-Wan are trying to correct the doomed ways of the Jedi Council when they're teaching Luke (his age and his attachments, to start with.)
So perhaps one of the things politicians could learn from Yoda is to learn from their mistakes.
The clones are brought in very hesitantly, by the way. And I have a hunch that some of the questions about remaining Jedi (and immortality) are being saved for the upcoming TV show....
I have nothing to add about ROTS in China, except that I believe it was a friendly Chinese lady who offered me a pirated DVD for $5 over my breakfast bagel this morning.
posted by muckster at 10:10 AM on June 9, 2005
There are other changes in Yoda's teachings. Luke is being trained very differently from Anakin. It seems that Yoda has learned all sorts of lessons from his failure in III, and he and Obi-Wan are trying to correct the doomed ways of the Jedi Council when they're teaching Luke (his age and his attachments, to start with.)
So perhaps one of the things politicians could learn from Yoda is to learn from their mistakes.
The clones are brought in very hesitantly, by the way. And I have a hunch that some of the questions about remaining Jedi (and immortality) are being saved for the upcoming TV show....
I have nothing to add about ROTS in China, except that I believe it was a friendly Chinese lady who offered me a pirated DVD for $5 over my breakfast bagel this morning.
posted by muckster at 10:10 AM on June 9, 2005
Yes, the skeletal outline of Sith's narrative arc has been around for decades. But the script was written in 2002-2003, and the Bush echoes were intentional, as Lucas hinted in his comments at Cannes: "As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things... I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will waken people to the situation."
The timing is interesting. Just as the movie has people talking about Nixon's "imperial presidency" again, Deep Throat is revealed. Now people are wondering, how Felt would have done against Bush. Probably not well.
posted by homunculus at 10:38 AM on June 9, 2005
The timing is interesting. Just as the movie has people talking about Nixon's "imperial presidency" again, Deep Throat is revealed. Now people are wondering, how Felt would have done against Bush. Probably not well.
posted by homunculus at 10:38 AM on June 9, 2005
I thought ROTS was absolutely terrible. The bad physics in the opening battle went way, way beyond suspension of belief. All of the characters were annoying, and except for annakin, their actions & behaviours were inconsistent with their previous characterizations. Annakin stayed true to his waffling, whining, petulant self.
Padme was the worst. How did the strong, resourceful, fierce young Padme transform into the weeping winging pathetic Padme who sits around wringing her hands saying "oh no it can't be true"? Why? Just from hanging out with Annakin too long?
What a colossal waste of Natalie Portman.
posted by lastobelus at 10:54 AM on June 9, 2005
Padme was the worst. How did the strong, resourceful, fierce young Padme transform into the weeping winging pathetic Padme who sits around wringing her hands saying "oh no it can't be true"? Why? Just from hanging out with Annakin too long?
What a colossal waste of Natalie Portman.
posted by lastobelus at 10:54 AM on June 9, 2005
How did the strong, resourceful, fierce young Padme transform into the weeping winging pathetic Padme
Hormones.
*ducks*
posted by GeekAnimator at 11:23 AM on June 9, 2005
Hormones.
*ducks*
posted by GeekAnimator at 11:23 AM on June 9, 2005
Based on the wording of the FPP, I was hoping for a little more insight into cultural differences than just "Star Wars isn't as popular there".
posted by cali at 11:34 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by cali at 11:34 AM on June 9, 2005
lastobelus, it always amuses me when people complain about the lack of realism. If nothing else, the title should have tipped you off. When you stop to think about it, Star Wars is just one notch above Heroes of the Galaxy or somesuch crap. Did you expect a NASA documentary?
Padme was way pregnant in ROTS, and there really wasn't much need for her, plotwise, except as a trigger for Anakin's fears. Yes, she was passive (except for finally confronting Anakin and as catalyst for the duel), but what else would you have had her do? In a way, the fact that you're so invested in her character means that Lucas already won. You care. (Which is what i_cola was getting at much more elegantly.)
I appreciate the way Lucas managed to smuggle some very pertinent political points into this major spectacle. Rewatching the entire saga a couple of times also confirmed that the prequels are a nifty experiment in narrative structure. I'm just working on a review of Francois Ozon's 5x2, which is attempting some of the same tricks, but isn't nearly as successful. But for some reason, Sith is considered popular crapola, and Ozon's film art house artsy art.
posted by muckster at 11:35 AM on June 9, 2005
Padme was way pregnant in ROTS, and there really wasn't much need for her, plotwise, except as a trigger for Anakin's fears. Yes, she was passive (except for finally confronting Anakin and as catalyst for the duel), but what else would you have had her do? In a way, the fact that you're so invested in her character means that Lucas already won. You care. (Which is what i_cola was getting at much more elegantly.)
I appreciate the way Lucas managed to smuggle some very pertinent political points into this major spectacle. Rewatching the entire saga a couple of times also confirmed that the prequels are a nifty experiment in narrative structure. I'm just working on a review of Francois Ozon's 5x2, which is attempting some of the same tricks, but isn't nearly as successful. But for some reason, Sith is considered popular crapola, and Ozon's film art house artsy art.
posted by muckster at 11:35 AM on June 9, 2005
"Yoda is clearly a hypocrite"
I'd chalk that up to bad writing. Yoda symbolizes something far more than Lucas' poor translation of Joseph Campbell's work.
"it always amuses me when people complain about the lack of realism..."
I'd chalk that up to bad writing. Internal consistiency is pretty important. The Matrix worked for me (for example) dispite the utter disregard for the laws of thermodynamics in some of the "explainations."
And internal consistiency covers drama as well. Greedo shoots first in the revised SW - why? Makes no dramatic sense. Greedo states he's going to kill him. Stupid. One day the Force is this mystical thing, the next it's biological. WTF?
It doesn't have to replicate actual physics, but the same acts should have the same results to suspend disbelief. It's why we can buy Superman shooting beams of heat from his eyes (!!??) but why we wouldn't if he suddenly could shoot them out his fingers or shoot beams of cold from his eyes etc. Simplistic anlogy there - hope you take my meaning though.
I don't buy that Lucas was consciously trying to work BushCo into the narrative. He'd've screwed it up much much more if he did.
Methinks they doth protest too much.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:00 PM on June 9, 2005
I'd chalk that up to bad writing. Yoda symbolizes something far more than Lucas' poor translation of Joseph Campbell's work.
"it always amuses me when people complain about the lack of realism..."
I'd chalk that up to bad writing. Internal consistiency is pretty important. The Matrix worked for me (for example) dispite the utter disregard for the laws of thermodynamics in some of the "explainations."
And internal consistiency covers drama as well. Greedo shoots first in the revised SW - why? Makes no dramatic sense. Greedo states he's going to kill him. Stupid. One day the Force is this mystical thing, the next it's biological. WTF?
It doesn't have to replicate actual physics, but the same acts should have the same results to suspend disbelief. It's why we can buy Superman shooting beams of heat from his eyes (!!??) but why we wouldn't if he suddenly could shoot them out his fingers or shoot beams of cold from his eyes etc. Simplistic anlogy there - hope you take my meaning though.
I don't buy that Lucas was consciously trying to work BushCo into the narrative. He'd've screwed it up much much more if he did.
Methinks they doth protest too much.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:00 PM on June 9, 2005
I thought the narrative would have been better, and Padme's character redeemed, if Anakin had defeated Obi-Wan on the lava planet, only to be shot in the back by Padme before he could kill Obi-Wan. It'd be a parallel to the Mace Windu scene, and give Padme's character a more active role.
I went to see Episode 3 because I thought it would be the last Star Wars movie. If I had thought that they would be doing more sequels, I probably would not have bothered going. Perhaps the Chinese feel similarly?
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:24 PM on June 9, 2005
I went to see Episode 3 because I thought it would be the last Star Wars movie. If I had thought that they would be doing more sequels, I probably would not have bothered going. Perhaps the Chinese feel similarly?
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:24 PM on June 9, 2005
few Chinese over 30 can claim any familiarity with the original "Star Wars" phenomenon
zzzzzzzzz.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:26 PM on June 9, 2005
zzzzzzzzz.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:26 PM on June 9, 2005
Smedleyman, not sure (but intrigued) as to what you're saying about Yoda. Fictional characters, like real people, are allowed certain contradictions. It creates complexity. Yoda changes over the course of the saga. In Star Wars, everything (even the robots and space ship designs) has a story arc. That's not bad writing; quite the opposite.
I disagree about the political content. Sith resonates so clearly with current US politics that it appears pretty much self-evident to me that the references were put there deliberately. Actually, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" seems to contradict some other Jedi teachings in a way that has some people questioning if Lucas risked the integrity of the saga to get a stab at Bush in. (There are also interesting anti-postmodern overtones, e.g. when Palpatine says, "Good is a point of view.")
You're right about internal consistency, but I don't see the problem. Which laws of physics (and internal Star Wars laws) were violated in the space battle? The Greedo thing never seemed that important to me. I guess he's getting paid for Han dead or alive, so killing him would make his job easier? Dunno. The Force is both mystical and biological. I have no problem with midichlorians. They're what allows certain people to access the mystical power. In a way, midichlorians are needed to explain why the de-limbed Vader never fulfilled Anakin's promise as most powerful Jedi: getting chopped up lowered his midichlorian count.
posted by muckster at 12:37 PM on June 9, 2005
I disagree about the political content. Sith resonates so clearly with current US politics that it appears pretty much self-evident to me that the references were put there deliberately. Actually, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" seems to contradict some other Jedi teachings in a way that has some people questioning if Lucas risked the integrity of the saga to get a stab at Bush in. (There are also interesting anti-postmodern overtones, e.g. when Palpatine says, "Good is a point of view.")
You're right about internal consistency, but I don't see the problem. Which laws of physics (and internal Star Wars laws) were violated in the space battle? The Greedo thing never seemed that important to me. I guess he's getting paid for Han dead or alive, so killing him would make his job easier? Dunno. The Force is both mystical and biological. I have no problem with midichlorians. They're what allows certain people to access the mystical power. In a way, midichlorians are needed to explain why the de-limbed Vader never fulfilled Anakin's promise as most powerful Jedi: getting chopped up lowered his midichlorian count.
posted by muckster at 12:37 PM on June 9, 2005
regardless of whether episode 3 was good or not, the chinese see much better action films on a regular basis. which would explain it really.
posted by jcterminal at 12:50 PM on June 9, 2005
posted by jcterminal at 12:50 PM on June 9, 2005
I rate movies by how much I would pay to see them and not feel ripped off. ROTS was $3.25. By comparison, the final LOTR was $7.00
posted by mecran01 at 1:24 PM on June 9, 2005
posted by mecran01 at 1:24 PM on June 9, 2005
China has changed a lot since 1977. And the main reason why Star Wars is popular in the US is because of the success of the original titles in 1977. Since China doesn't have that legacy, it will never appreciate Star Wars in the same way.
People went to ROTS because of Star Wars, not necessarily because of the film's individual merits.
posted by chaz at 2:05 PM on June 9, 2005
People went to ROTS because of Star Wars, not necessarily because of the film's individual merits.
posted by chaz at 2:05 PM on June 9, 2005
I laughed out loud when Anakin said, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." It almost seemed like he changed the wording so the Bush parallel wouldn't be too obvious. Whether intentional or not, Lucas certainly touched on some political themes that are frighteningly similar to reality.
posted by sacrilicious at 2:12 PM on June 9, 2005
posted by sacrilicious at 2:12 PM on June 9, 2005
yeah i been listening to friends poo poo the notion of a political parallels, and i with you sacrilicious i got it as well, and it made me uncomfortable, mostly because i was not expecting it. i was expecting a action movie :)
posted by nola at 2:35 PM on June 9, 2005
posted by nola at 2:35 PM on June 9, 2005
Fictional characters, like real people, are allowed certain contradictions.
Agreed. But within certain perameters. To thine own self be true - something something. I dunno, some playwright wrote that.
King Lear has an arc.
That's not bad writing; quite the opposite.
I liked the film. I liked the Matrix and that's pretty piss poor writing in that series. But I'm not going to argue matters of taste.
Which laws of physics (and internal Star Wars laws) were violated in the space battle?
Just a general statement (who was one of the characters by the way: General Statement). Starships have sound as they pass by, so do, what appear to be light emmission weapons, which also have recoil. I'm fine with the dramatic effect over ruling the physics.
I guess he's getting paid for Han dead or alive, so killing him would make his job easier?
No, see, in the orginal, Solo shot Greedo. In the later ones, Greedo shot first (and missed from about 2 feet) and Solo fired after. Pointless I say, and poor drama, since, as you say, Greedo was clearly going to kill him.
The Force is both mystical and biological. I have no problem with midichlorians.
Matter of taste. That explaination works fine. I prefer the metaphysical. And I have a distaste for anything that smacks of Eugenics (ex-mensan).
Intrigued about Yoda? Here you go.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:40 PM on June 9, 2005
Agreed. But within certain perameters. To thine own self be true - something something. I dunno, some playwright wrote that.
King Lear has an arc.
That's not bad writing; quite the opposite.
I liked the film. I liked the Matrix and that's pretty piss poor writing in that series. But I'm not going to argue matters of taste.
Which laws of physics (and internal Star Wars laws) were violated in the space battle?
Just a general statement (who was one of the characters by the way: General Statement). Starships have sound as they pass by, so do, what appear to be light emmission weapons, which also have recoil. I'm fine with the dramatic effect over ruling the physics.
I guess he's getting paid for Han dead or alive, so killing him would make his job easier?
No, see, in the orginal, Solo shot Greedo. In the later ones, Greedo shot first (and missed from about 2 feet) and Solo fired after. Pointless I say, and poor drama, since, as you say, Greedo was clearly going to kill him.
The Force is both mystical and biological. I have no problem with midichlorians.
Matter of taste. That explaination works fine. I prefer the metaphysical. And I have a distaste for anything that smacks of Eugenics (ex-mensan).
Intrigued about Yoda? Here you go.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:40 PM on June 9, 2005
Discussing Campbell's theories about the hero archetype while talking about Ep1-3 is an abomination. Anything Lucas claimed to have learned about JC's work and applied to ep4-6 he clearly forgot before he vomited Ep1 up onto the screen.
posted by phearlez at 2:41 PM on June 9, 2005
posted by phearlez at 2:41 PM on June 9, 2005
Smedlyman, thanks for responding, but you didn't quite answer any of my questions.
I've read Campbell; I thought you were making a specific point about Yoda. You said "Yoda symbolizes something far more than Lucas' poor translation of Joseph Campbell's work." My question is, what? And where does Yoda break the established character?
I know about the change in the Greedo scene. I just don't understand why the fanboys made such a big deal out of it. It takes about a second; it hardly changes the drama at all, as I see it. Greedo's dramatic function is to establish that Han is being chased. They have a gunfight, Greedo dies. Whether or not he shot first doesn't change a thing, except that it appears to make Han a slightly more palpable character. I think it's a non-issue.
I asked about the space battle because you seemed to imply that there were interior dramatic inconsitencies. I still don't see them. I understand that in our galaxy, you don't hear explosions in space. In Star Wars, you do. Where's the problem?
phearlez, care to elaborate? IV-VI tell a hero's journey. So do I-VI.
posted by muckster at 2:58 PM on June 9, 2005
I've read Campbell; I thought you were making a specific point about Yoda. You said "Yoda symbolizes something far more than Lucas' poor translation of Joseph Campbell's work." My question is, what? And where does Yoda break the established character?
I know about the change in the Greedo scene. I just don't understand why the fanboys made such a big deal out of it. It takes about a second; it hardly changes the drama at all, as I see it. Greedo's dramatic function is to establish that Han is being chased. They have a gunfight, Greedo dies. Whether or not he shot first doesn't change a thing, except that it appears to make Han a slightly more palpable character. I think it's a non-issue.
I asked about the space battle because you seemed to imply that there were interior dramatic inconsitencies. I still don't see them. I understand that in our galaxy, you don't hear explosions in space. In Star Wars, you do. Where's the problem?
phearlez, care to elaborate? IV-VI tell a hero's journey. So do I-VI.
posted by muckster at 2:58 PM on June 9, 2005
(Greedo) I think it's a non-issue.
I'm irritated by it. Why attach 2 feet of useless pipe to a drain line? It's pointless to me. But again, it's a matter of taste.
And where does Yoda break the established character?
I was referencing biffa's (and to a lesser degree muckster) argument on Yoda is being a hypocrite.
So I was supporting your argument, but attributing any inconsistiencies to errors or oversights or what have you to Lucas' writing.
Yoda is in the first series....for lack of a better metaphor, the Heirophant. In ESB he's the Fool and an ascended master. There is a wealth of very rich mythos behind all this and Lucas makes use of only the form of the journey, so we get some nifty quotes. Typical, I think, of Lucas, he likes to tell, not show. ROTS clearly - in my opinion, exemplifies that.
"Oh, I love, you" "I love you too, and I'm willing to destroy everything to save our love, now I'm walking, now I'm drawing my light saber and I feel very angry, and I'm opposed to you now and blah blah blah"
All of the holes in the three first produced movies are forgivable because the holes are made to show how things are rather than take the "I'm just going to tell you" way out.
So, the Shakespere reference - who at least used asides to the audiance when he did that.
In essence the same problem with Greedo - you have this fantastic material, and you shitcan it. Fro reasons that appear to be other than serving the story. So I get frustrated.
you seemed to imply that there were interior dramatic inconsitencies. I still don't see them.
Off the top of my head (and as a courtesy because I hate debating matters of taste - which this is - and again because I did in fact enjoy ROTS) I'd go with: what's with shell casings for light/energy based weaponry? how is it in IV that Obi Wan didn't know there were twins? For that matter how is it Vader knows Luke is his son but doesn't know Leia is his daughter (yeah "the force" and "midichlorians" - I call it lousy drama since that would have been a cool revelation to see) For that matter technology is advanced enough for nerve/machine interface, but people still die in childbirth? The Lars' buy R2D2 & C-3PO but have no idea (even though they met in ROTS) that Anakin built one of them? (I do like that they erased C-3PO's memory - it does explain why R2 knew which way to go on Tatooine). Pretty much all the battles in TPM... And how is it Leia remembers her mother? And what ever happened to Toshi and going into town to pick up some power converters?
TONS more of this stuff elsewhere.
If I don't respond, I'm not ignoring you, I'm off to get eye surgery.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:30 PM on June 9, 2005
I'm irritated by it. Why attach 2 feet of useless pipe to a drain line? It's pointless to me. But again, it's a matter of taste.
And where does Yoda break the established character?
I was referencing biffa's (and to a lesser degree muckster) argument on Yoda is being a hypocrite.
So I was supporting your argument, but attributing any inconsistiencies to errors or oversights or what have you to Lucas' writing.
Yoda is in the first series....for lack of a better metaphor, the Heirophant. In ESB he's the Fool and an ascended master. There is a wealth of very rich mythos behind all this and Lucas makes use of only the form of the journey, so we get some nifty quotes. Typical, I think, of Lucas, he likes to tell, not show. ROTS clearly - in my opinion, exemplifies that.
"Oh, I love, you" "I love you too, and I'm willing to destroy everything to save our love, now I'm walking, now I'm drawing my light saber and I feel very angry, and I'm opposed to you now and blah blah blah"
All of the holes in the three first produced movies are forgivable because the holes are made to show how things are rather than take the "I'm just going to tell you" way out.
So, the Shakespere reference - who at least used asides to the audiance when he did that.
In essence the same problem with Greedo - you have this fantastic material, and you shitcan it. Fro reasons that appear to be other than serving the story. So I get frustrated.
you seemed to imply that there were interior dramatic inconsitencies. I still don't see them.
Off the top of my head (and as a courtesy because I hate debating matters of taste - which this is - and again because I did in fact enjoy ROTS) I'd go with: what's with shell casings for light/energy based weaponry? how is it in IV that Obi Wan didn't know there were twins? For that matter how is it Vader knows Luke is his son but doesn't know Leia is his daughter (yeah "the force" and "midichlorians" - I call it lousy drama since that would have been a cool revelation to see) For that matter technology is advanced enough for nerve/machine interface, but people still die in childbirth? The Lars' buy R2D2 & C-3PO but have no idea (even though they met in ROTS) that Anakin built one of them? (I do like that they erased C-3PO's memory - it does explain why R2 knew which way to go on Tatooine). Pretty much all the battles in TPM... And how is it Leia remembers her mother? And what ever happened to Toshi and going into town to pick up some power converters?
TONS more of this stuff elsewhere.
If I don't respond, I'm not ignoring you, I'm off to get eye surgery.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:30 PM on June 9, 2005
Greedo's dramatic function is to establish that Han is being chased.
Well, I think we're not really supposed to know if Han Solo is a good guy or not -- this shows that he's on the wrong side of the law. Luke has gotten involved with seedy characters at this point and it's not clear whether Han is going to turn out to have a heart of gold yet. He's not above ruthless moves just to stay alive.
It's the later revisionist history of Jedi that smoothed out the rough edges of Han in our minds, making him just another team player. If you listen to the original NPR radio drama of "Star Wars," they have a guy playing him like a weasely kind of dude. Then by the time the "Empire" drama came out (around the time of "Jedi"), his characterization was altered now that it had been realized Han was supposed to be 100% sympathetic.
posted by inksyndicate at 5:46 PM on June 9, 2005
Well, I think we're not really supposed to know if Han Solo is a good guy or not -- this shows that he's on the wrong side of the law. Luke has gotten involved with seedy characters at this point and it's not clear whether Han is going to turn out to have a heart of gold yet. He's not above ruthless moves just to stay alive.
It's the later revisionist history of Jedi that smoothed out the rough edges of Han in our minds, making him just another team player. If you listen to the original NPR radio drama of "Star Wars," they have a guy playing him like a weasely kind of dude. Then by the time the "Empire" drama came out (around the time of "Jedi"), his characterization was altered now that it had been realized Han was supposed to be 100% sympathetic.
posted by inksyndicate at 5:46 PM on June 9, 2005
muckster, you really have drunk the kool-aid, haven't you? You've been gung-ho on this mediocre b-movie (that doesn't even come close to rising to the tragic dimensions its hack writer so obviously believes he's achieved) for a while now. It's funny, but not convincing.
posted by mediareport at 6:49 PM on June 9, 2005
posted by mediareport at 6:49 PM on June 9, 2005
mediareport, I'm honestly glad my enthusiasm amuses you. It's always more fun to enjoy things than not. As a critic, I'm too often in the other camp--arguing why, say, "The Life Aquatic" or "Kill Bill" are awful movies, and feeling alone with my disappointment. So yeah, I've embraced Star Wars. Sorry you think it's mediocre. (Compared to what? If there's a better six-film space opera you know of, please please tell me.)
inksyndicate, that's a good point about the ambiguity of Han at that point. I'm not saying it's great that Lucas changed the Greedo scene, I just don't get all the fuss. I think the newly inserted Jabba scene that comes right after is much worse--it serves no purpose, and the CGI Jabba looks terrible.
Smedleyman, it's too late for me to go into a blow-by-blow right now, but some of these questions are better than others. For example, Padme doesn't die in childbirth, she dies because she "has lost the will to live." And Vader finds out Luke is his son when he chases him down the Death Star trench--"The Force is strong with this one"-- because it's very similar to what Anakin did in Episode I. He only learns about Leia when Luke's thoughts betray him in VI.
As for Yoda, I figure he's The Hermit in V and The Hierophant in I-III. In IV, Obi-Wan is the Hermit--these roles are somewhat flexible. They're not written in stone. Campbell only distilled the archetypes and motifs shared by the world's myths--it's not a prescription on how to use them or write new ones. So there's really no "abusing" Campbell. You're certainly right about Lucas always spelling out the subtext, but I think it's works. Star Wars is not supposed to be subtle; myth isn't subtle. It's supposed to be larger than life.
posted by muckster at 8:27 PM on June 9, 2005
inksyndicate, that's a good point about the ambiguity of Han at that point. I'm not saying it's great that Lucas changed the Greedo scene, I just don't get all the fuss. I think the newly inserted Jabba scene that comes right after is much worse--it serves no purpose, and the CGI Jabba looks terrible.
Smedleyman, it's too late for me to go into a blow-by-blow right now, but some of these questions are better than others. For example, Padme doesn't die in childbirth, she dies because she "has lost the will to live." And Vader finds out Luke is his son when he chases him down the Death Star trench--"The Force is strong with this one"-- because it's very similar to what Anakin did in Episode I. He only learns about Leia when Luke's thoughts betray him in VI.
As for Yoda, I figure he's The Hermit in V and The Hierophant in I-III. In IV, Obi-Wan is the Hermit--these roles are somewhat flexible. They're not written in stone. Campbell only distilled the archetypes and motifs shared by the world's myths--it's not a prescription on how to use them or write new ones. So there's really no "abusing" Campbell. You're certainly right about Lucas always spelling out the subtext, but I think it's works. Star Wars is not supposed to be subtle; myth isn't subtle. It's supposed to be larger than life.
posted by muckster at 8:27 PM on June 9, 2005
Compared to what?
Good lord, you really have to ask?
What it could have been.
What it should have been.
For starters.
posted by mediareport at 10:21 PM on June 9, 2005
Good lord, you really have to ask?
What it could have been.
What it should have been.
For starters.
posted by mediareport at 10:21 PM on June 9, 2005
Star Wars is not supposed to be subtle; myth isn't subtle.
*gags on kool-aid*
posted by mediareport at 10:22 PM on June 9, 2005
*gags on kool-aid*
posted by mediareport at 10:22 PM on June 9, 2005
Here in Shenzhen, you can buy a great quality pirated DVD copy for maybe 6 yuan (about 65-70 cents, US). OR, you could go to see it in a crowded theater for 100 yuan (12 dollars).
This isn't something most migrant day laborers in China would want to spend their money on anyway.
posted by taschenrechner at 10:22 PM on June 9, 2005
This isn't something most migrant day laborers in China would want to spend their money on anyway.
posted by taschenrechner at 10:22 PM on June 9, 2005
Good lord, you really have to ask?
What it could have been.
What it should have been.
For starters.
I am entirely certain that virtually everything cannot out-compete a pure hypothetical version that exists in someone's mind. Except, of course, in the whole existance department.
I am entirely unsure why some people make a great big deal about not liking things.
posted by Snyder at 2:19 AM on June 10, 2005
What it could have been.
What it should have been.
For starters.
I am entirely certain that virtually everything cannot out-compete a pure hypothetical version that exists in someone's mind. Except, of course, in the whole existance department.
I am entirely unsure why some people make a great big deal about not liking things.
posted by Snyder at 2:19 AM on June 10, 2005
kildevil
$30? Well, it's £6.50 a head over in the UK. Which (assuming the dollar is still knackered) is about $25-$30.
posted by twine42 at 4:38 AM on June 10, 2005
$30? Well, it's £6.50 a head over in the UK. Which (assuming the dollar is still knackered) is about $25-$30.
posted by twine42 at 4:38 AM on June 10, 2005
I am entirely unsure why some people make a great big deal about not liking things.
I liked it fine, thanks, and even think the last 45 minutes almost redeemed the moronic schlock of the previous two movies. But muckster's ongoing attempts (and boy, have they been ongoing) to elevate what's clearly a clumsy hack job to the status of Myth have gotten really tedious; I appreciate that he's turned it into something of a cottage industry, but can't wait for him to find another popcult item to cream over. It's hilarious, for instance, to claim the series' lack of subtlety is somehow a plus, while bending over backwards with subtle scenarios to explain away obvious contradictions in Lucas' "now you see it, now you don't" plot and writing skills Lucas himself admits aren't all that great.
Just bringing some balance back to the Force, is all.
posted by mediareport at 5:42 AM on June 10, 2005
I liked it fine, thanks, and even think the last 45 minutes almost redeemed the moronic schlock of the previous two movies. But muckster's ongoing attempts (and boy, have they been ongoing) to elevate what's clearly a clumsy hack job to the status of Myth have gotten really tedious; I appreciate that he's turned it into something of a cottage industry, but can't wait for him to find another popcult item to cream over. It's hilarious, for instance, to claim the series' lack of subtlety is somehow a plus, while bending over backwards with subtle scenarios to explain away obvious contradictions in Lucas' "now you see it, now you don't" plot and writing skills Lucas himself admits aren't all that great.
Just bringing some balance back to the Force, is all.
posted by mediareport at 5:42 AM on June 10, 2005
Oh, the fickle affections of mediareport! Three posts earlier I was amusing, but already I have become tedious! Say it ain't so! Hey, if you're bored with Sith and already convinced that's it's "clearly a clumsy hack job," you don't have to read down here. I was trying to make an argument, but you're just snarkin'.
It's entirely possible for a work of art to have on-the-nose dialogue but complex storytelling and structure. I can't wait to find out if that concept strikes you as tedious or hilarious.
posted by muckster at 9:02 AM on June 10, 2005
It's entirely possible for a work of art to have on-the-nose dialogue but complex storytelling and structure. I can't wait to find out if that concept strikes you as tedious or hilarious.
posted by muckster at 9:02 AM on June 10, 2005
For example, Padme doesn't die in childbirth, she dies because she "has lost the will to live."
Because that makes even more sense.
If you just needed someone to explain to you what was wrong with Greedo shooting first, I don't know what you're doing having this discussion. It's the apparent credulousness of your approach that makes it both amusing and tedious, muckster. Are you really trying to argue that the prequels didn't introduce any inconsistencies? That Lucas's writing is really brilliant?
posted by ludwig_van at 9:25 AM on June 10, 2005
Because that makes even more sense.
If you just needed someone to explain to you what was wrong with Greedo shooting first, I don't know what you're doing having this discussion. It's the apparent credulousness of your approach that makes it both amusing and tedious, muckster. Are you really trying to argue that the prequels didn't introduce any inconsistencies? That Lucas's writing is really brilliant?
posted by ludwig_van at 9:25 AM on June 10, 2005
mediareport: For a clumsy hack job you sure have invested a lot of time in it. Maybe if you spent more time on making this clumsy hack job less ugly (so much potential!) this clockwatcher could take your opinions more seriously...
Yeah, I know, cheap shot but the shrill is getting a bit strong.
Look, from the moment I saw a stormtrooper clunk his bonce on a boom mike in EPIV I was never expecting high art or ultra subtle narrative. What I did get was a whole bunch of *fun*. I like that.
ludwig_van: For you and your consistency nerd friends.
posted by i_cola at 9:30 AM on June 10, 2005
Yeah, I know, cheap shot but the shrill is getting a bit strong.
Look, from the moment I saw a stormtrooper clunk his bonce on a boom mike in EPIV I was never expecting high art or ultra subtle narrative. What I did get was a whole bunch of *fun*. I like that.
ludwig_van: For you and your consistency nerd friends.
posted by i_cola at 9:30 AM on June 10, 2005
muckster, re: everything you said.
Ok. Fine. Whatever. It's a matter of taste. Some people like grape bubble gum. I don't, but I'm not that interested in debating about which chemical compositions create greater varieties of taste.
I would say only that I disagree with the: Padme doesn't die in childbirth, she dies because she has lost the will to live solely because of the utter lack of drama there. One considers a technological explaination because there is so little "heat" for lack of a better word, between the two.
Reminds me of Owen/Danny DiVito's story from the movie Throw Momma from the Train
"Suddenly, even though he was shot, the guy in the hat - GOT UP!!!"
That's very dramatic to be sure. Amazing. The guy got up even though he was shot. Wow. And I absolutely don't care because there is no context there. Padme is good only because Portman is a brillian actress.
ROTS would have been better if the first two movies were better and there had been more of a connection. Otherwise she's the equivalent of Fred Fenster in the Usual Suspects, simply there to die, which is why Del Toro mumbled, which made the character memorable because of the acting alone. Otherwise Fenster is a throwaway character who no one would have remembered.
So even a movie as good as that, has it's flaws.
Lucas isn't Shakespeare.
That said, I did enjoy it. It just wasn't as good as it could have been. Could I have done it better? Yes. Why? Because I wouldn't have had an ego about it and I would have worked harder and if I saw someone doing a better job putting dialogue and what have you together I'd have given that person the job. Ego often gets in the way of the best use of talent and material.
Anything can be retroactively explained and justified, but I found myself completely not doing that with the LOTR movies. And I was very much prepared to trash the hell out of them. I'm still irritated there was no Tom Bombadil, but I recognize it as a good dramatic choice not to include him in the films. With the SW I- III series I find myself doing the opposite, trying to like it, but having to justify it.
But again, grape bubble gum. Perhaps Yoda is meant to be Loki - fine, whatever. It's not worth discussing because ultimately Lucas' ego distorts what genius was there.
Good stuff that could have been magnificent stuff, but that's a personal value judgement, not a disagreement with the validity of your own opinion.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:24 PM on June 10, 2005
Ok. Fine. Whatever. It's a matter of taste. Some people like grape bubble gum. I don't, but I'm not that interested in debating about which chemical compositions create greater varieties of taste.
I would say only that I disagree with the: Padme doesn't die in childbirth, she dies because she has lost the will to live solely because of the utter lack of drama there. One considers a technological explaination because there is so little "heat" for lack of a better word, between the two.
Reminds me of Owen/Danny DiVito's story from the movie Throw Momma from the Train
"Suddenly, even though he was shot, the guy in the hat - GOT UP!!!"
That's very dramatic to be sure. Amazing. The guy got up even though he was shot. Wow. And I absolutely don't care because there is no context there. Padme is good only because Portman is a brillian actress.
ROTS would have been better if the first two movies were better and there had been more of a connection. Otherwise she's the equivalent of Fred Fenster in the Usual Suspects, simply there to die, which is why Del Toro mumbled, which made the character memorable because of the acting alone. Otherwise Fenster is a throwaway character who no one would have remembered.
So even a movie as good as that, has it's flaws.
Lucas isn't Shakespeare.
That said, I did enjoy it. It just wasn't as good as it could have been. Could I have done it better? Yes. Why? Because I wouldn't have had an ego about it and I would have worked harder and if I saw someone doing a better job putting dialogue and what have you together I'd have given that person the job. Ego often gets in the way of the best use of talent and material.
Anything can be retroactively explained and justified, but I found myself completely not doing that with the LOTR movies. And I was very much prepared to trash the hell out of them. I'm still irritated there was no Tom Bombadil, but I recognize it as a good dramatic choice not to include him in the films. With the SW I- III series I find myself doing the opposite, trying to like it, but having to justify it.
But again, grape bubble gum. Perhaps Yoda is meant to be Loki - fine, whatever. It's not worth discussing because ultimately Lucas' ego distorts what genius was there.
Good stuff that could have been magnificent stuff, but that's a personal value judgement, not a disagreement with the validity of your own opinion.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:24 PM on June 10, 2005
ludwig_van: For you and your consistency nerd friends.
I've read that, but I don't see your point. I didn't dislike RotS because of the inconsistencies, although they bothered me a little afterwards. In fact, I didn't dislike it at all - I had a good enough time in the theater, and I feel like I got my (student discounted) $5 worth. But I don't think it was a very good movie, and I think it's silly to try to make excuses for it. I'm not the one treating it like it's high art.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:43 PM on June 10, 2005
I've read that, but I don't see your point. I didn't dislike RotS because of the inconsistencies, although they bothered me a little afterwards. In fact, I didn't dislike it at all - I had a good enough time in the theater, and I feel like I got my (student discounted) $5 worth. But I don't think it was a very good movie, and I think it's silly to try to make excuses for it. I'm not the one treating it like it's high art.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:43 PM on June 10, 2005
Smeldeyman, I understand & appreciate your point of view. As a straight-up action-adventure, there are all kinds of things wrong with Star Wars, and there are plenty of people happy to catalog all its faults.
But I do believe that it's worth it to expand a little bit of work to understand something on its own terms, and my argument is that you can watch these movies as peculiar art films -- and suddenly everything falls into place. Star Wars has been compared to The Matrix a couple of times in this thread. To me, it has much more in common with, say, Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge. Remember, Lucas was and is very interested in all kinds of experimental film. There's a clear Mark Rothko influence on Sith. So yeah, I'm treating it like it's art ("high" or not--not sure what that means.) And as far as I can see, it works that way. The argument that "of course it isn't" simply isn't enough. 90% of contemporary art doesn't look like my grandmother's idea of "art."
I realize that on the surface, this argument is ludicrous and wide open to ridicule. Apparently it looks like I'm bending over backwards to justify all kinds of obvious blunders. But if the blunders are so damn obvious--perhaps they're there on purpose? Lucas might not be David Mamet, but he's not an idiot. To me, the most common complaint ("bad writing") is completely missing the point. The dialog is very blatant, but that's entirely appropriate, and the storytelling is first rate (or it wouldn't be as popular--even people who hate the prequels are very invested in the characters.) Star Wars is a mad homage to Flash Gordon, a visual phantasmagoria and an experiment in epic narrative that's somehow entirely sui generis. There's nothing like it, and that alone almost makes it worthwhile.
And i_cola is right: it's also a hell of a lot of fun. Which is why I still enjoy talking about it. (Next: why Padme's death is handled just exactly right.)
posted by muckster at 1:23 PM on June 10, 2005
But I do believe that it's worth it to expand a little bit of work to understand something on its own terms, and my argument is that you can watch these movies as peculiar art films -- and suddenly everything falls into place. Star Wars has been compared to The Matrix a couple of times in this thread. To me, it has much more in common with, say, Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge. Remember, Lucas was and is very interested in all kinds of experimental film. There's a clear Mark Rothko influence on Sith. So yeah, I'm treating it like it's art ("high" or not--not sure what that means.) And as far as I can see, it works that way. The argument that "of course it isn't" simply isn't enough. 90% of contemporary art doesn't look like my grandmother's idea of "art."
I realize that on the surface, this argument is ludicrous and wide open to ridicule. Apparently it looks like I'm bending over backwards to justify all kinds of obvious blunders. But if the blunders are so damn obvious--perhaps they're there on purpose? Lucas might not be David Mamet, but he's not an idiot. To me, the most common complaint ("bad writing") is completely missing the point. The dialog is very blatant, but that's entirely appropriate, and the storytelling is first rate (or it wouldn't be as popular--even people who hate the prequels are very invested in the characters.) Star Wars is a mad homage to Flash Gordon, a visual phantasmagoria and an experiment in epic narrative that's somehow entirely sui generis. There's nothing like it, and that alone almost makes it worthwhile.
And i_cola is right: it's also a hell of a lot of fun. Which is why I still enjoy talking about it. (Next: why Padme's death is handled just exactly right.)
posted by muckster at 1:23 PM on June 10, 2005
The dialog is very blatant, but that's entirely appropriate, and the storytelling is first rate (or it wouldn't be as popular--even people who hate the prequels are very invested in the characters.)
It would be popular no matter how bad the writing is because it's the sixth Star Wars movie. People weren't discouraged by Episode I or Episode II (or were those interesting as art films, too?). None of the prequels had to be good to get people to see them.
And I couldn't care less about most of the prequel characters, and most people I've spoken to seem to think similarly. They were as good as wooden props.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:38 PM on June 10, 2005
It would be popular no matter how bad the writing is because it's the sixth Star Wars movie. People weren't discouraged by Episode I or Episode II (or were those interesting as art films, too?). None of the prequels had to be good to get people to see them.
And I couldn't care less about most of the prequel characters, and most people I've spoken to seem to think similarly. They were as good as wooden props.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:38 PM on June 10, 2005
Tangent: I just had a good evening in the pub talking about SW inconsistencies, Hitchcock (esp NbyNW), the fact that despite video messaging teenagers still prefer the more luddite SMS, and moved on to the big fantasies of the 20th & 21st centuries...Narnia, Middle Earth and...that galaxy far, far away. Star Wars will always be fun. Deal with it Nerdlinger.
And I couldn't care less about most of the prequel characters, and most people I've spoken to seem to think similarly.
You have a boring life. Take it from me...I know about these things.
Fun, fun fun fun; Fun, fun fun fun; Fun, fun fun fun; Fun, fun fun fun...
;-)
posted by i_cola at 3:06 PM on June 10, 2005
And I couldn't care less about most of the prequel characters, and most people I've spoken to seem to think similarly.
You have a boring life. Take it from me...I know about these things.
Fun, fun fun fun; Fun, fun fun fun; Fun, fun fun fun; Fun, fun fun fun...
;-)
posted by i_cola at 3:06 PM on June 10, 2005
Enjoying Star Wars -> Enjoying Life? I guess we'll agree to disagree.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:39 PM on June 10, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 5:39 PM on June 10, 2005
(so much potential!)
*laughs*
I know, sweetie, I know. But if you ever see anyone like muckster attempting to make a buck by elevating my clumsy hackery to the status of Mythic Event Beyond Compare, please, please let me know. I'll be the first to smack them upside the head.
posted by mediareport at 9:26 PM on June 10, 2005
*laughs*
I know, sweetie, I know. But if you ever see anyone like muckster attempting to make a buck by elevating my clumsy hackery to the status of Mythic Event Beyond Compare, please, please let me know. I'll be the first to smack them upside the head.
posted by mediareport at 9:26 PM on June 10, 2005
I don't know, if think you can breath your ideas and perceptions into anything. If you can find them in star wars and still have a great time watching broadside to broadside space battles, the power to ya. Art . . . is an elusive concept, and almost any art has been called trash by it's fair share of critics. Art is what we put into. I like Star Wars, I like lightsaber duel scenes, I like the idea of the mythic knightlike protectors and the secretive cabal that moves against them, I like lords in dark armor, or sounds in space because it wouldn't be as fun otherwise. It's fun, it really is. But if want to analysis the rise, fall, and rerise of a character, if only because it's rare that a film deal with a character who is clearly evil (torturing your daughter, even if you don't know, isn't cool.), then that's worth something to me. It makes me think about things, and not in a strictly Star Wars setting. If I want to think how the Jedi, this great organization, fell prey not just to the plots of Sith, but to their own rigid dogma, and how they eventually train someone who is totally unlike their previous ways, because they know it won't work like it once did, then power to me. Art is what you breath into something. And as much as Citizen Kane gets me thinking, so does Ep III. Sure it has cardboard characters and defying physics, but it's a kid's movie after all: a simplistic version of some ideas that are larger than any space opera. So I drank the punch sports drink. And? I enjoyed something and if some gaudy piece of trash makes me think, then so be it. I can think of worse films, or those that are more deserving of my ire.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:43 AM on June 11, 2005
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:43 AM on June 11, 2005
Sure it has cardboard characters and defying physics, but it's a kid's movie after all
No excuse. The Harry Potter stuff is directly aimed at kids, so was the Incredibles - both were damn good craftsmanship with outstanding characters.
I can think of worse films, or those that are more deserving of my ire.
I can certainly agree with that.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:58 AM on June 12, 2005
No excuse. The Harry Potter stuff is directly aimed at kids, so was the Incredibles - both were damn good craftsmanship with outstanding characters.
I can think of worse films, or those that are more deserving of my ire.
I can certainly agree with that.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:58 AM on June 12, 2005
« Older Edit tick | The Illuminated Middle Ages Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:22 AM on June 9, 2005