PT TPM 3D Has Finally Stopped The "Everyone Hates This Movie" Charade!

The cameos in AOTC and ROTS were pretty obvious and quite well know. With TPM... it seemed likt there was stuff everywhere... tucked into every corner.

 

This is one of the best posts I have read on here in a while, In fact I would say that the last page an a half of this thread has provided some of the best posts in months.

 

Given that Lucas very intentionally based SW (the franchise) on old 1940s Sci-Fi serials, it would not surprise me at all if this were to be confirmed as complete truth. I once listened to an old radio drama that I believe was from the '40s, and it was replete with moments were 'eye-roll-worthy' and 'cringe-worthy' because of how lame they were, and the SW films (even the Classic Trilogy) are also replete with these types of moments.

 

Agreed. And there are many elements he has borrowed from those old sci-fi serials; in the TPM audio commentary he mentions how the "cliffhanger"-like nature of the different stories in the ending of TPM was meant to emulate the cliffhangers of the old serials - where suddenly everything seemed lost, there seemed no way out for the heroes, and then all of a sudden something happened that turned things around.

A lot of the stuff from the 40s seems very corny and "cringe-worthy" by today's standards. But at the time, it seems most people took it at face value, or at least weren't bothered by it.

 

Uh, love the man's movies tho' I do, I don't think cringing was his goal!

I do think Lucas clearly missed the mark in some places in TPM & AOTC, the naive, "early-talkies" acting style just doesn't work as well as it did in the OT. In AOTC he decided to focus on political & action scenes in re-shoots instead of re-thinking the romantic scenes, which for many of us, are indeed "cringe-worthy", and those scenes really fall flat for most adult viewers. I get what he was aiming for, but I don't think Hayden or Natalie did, or that they were comfortable with it. Over-stylization is one of the hallmarks of the PT. I can deal with that (I even like it), he tried a lot of really outre things, some of it just falls flat. But I don't think he'd've been disappointed if audiences "bought" all of the performances in the PT. I think the presence of an acting coach, and a much tighter script, helped RotS a great deal. And Lucas wisely used re-shoots to focus on dramatically important scenes, not just action set-pieces. The difference between the acting in AOTC (which lapses too often into complete flatness) and RotS (in which the actors seem far more engaged and energetic) is marked.

So I'm inclined to disagree.

 

I can't remember which recent Lucas interview it was (maybe somebody else can) but Lucas actually said being "corny" is very much part of his "formula," his mixture of high philosophical concepts balanced out by good old corny pop B-movie fun.

Another recent interview, with Spielberg, mentions the refrigerator scene from Indy 4. There was some confusion over whether it was a Lucas moment or a Spielberg moment. Apparently Spielberg tried to take the ?blame? to protect George from yet another fan assault, but it was later revealed that it was a Lucas idea. I for one thought that it was funny and played quite well. Indy movies are based upon the same kind of adventure serials as Star Wars. Lead lined old school American made fridge.. the kind kids are not supposed to hide in for fear of getting locked in?. I thought it worked well enough that the suspension of disbelief is not disturbed. And it was just plain funny. Anyhow?

I know its become a cliché to say that people don?t like certain movies, books, music etc.. because they don?t ?get it.?

But I do believe that George Lucas is a lot more subtle and clever than large portions of the movie going audience in the prequel (and Red Tails) era were/are willing to give him credit for. The confusion likely results from the fact that Star Wars is genuine art in a low-brow wrapper. Make a black and white silent film in 2011 and release it in just two theaters. People instantly recognize that you are attempting to create a nuanced work of art. The finer points of the prequel trilogy have been overlooked for the same reason that Science Fiction and Fantasy have pretty much always been overlooked by critics. Too many people refuse to believe that these genres are about anything other than escapism, when in fact the best Sci Fi / Fantasy has always been about confronting the same big human issues that literary novels and art house films do.

 

Lucas shot himself in the foot by describing Red Tails as "old fashioned & corny" -- he gave critics their copy, free of charge. Hardly any review - professional or amateur, positive or negative - of the film failed to call it "old fashioned" and "corny".

He should have said, "It's a throwback to early 70's cinema, where the stories are more character centered, as opposed to 'character driven', and the drama is open ended, while other parts of the film are highly stylized." That actually describes Red Tails, but I think Lucas tried to cut 'em off at the pass & inadvertently gave them ammo against him.

I would also argue against "formula", what makes his ouvre so interesting is its variety, not the repeated use of a formula. Star Wars has certain key stylistic elements and content parameters, but his other work as a producer & director is pretty diverse. If you look at his two longest running television projects - Young Indy & Clone Wars - almost every episode is in a different genre, with different genre rules.

 

I wouldn't bring the 70's in to this. What Lucas did in 77 was very much in opposition to what was happening in the cinema of the 60's and 70's (although there were a some throwback films in those years, that recalled an earlier era). What he did with Red Tails more recently is a throw back to the War Movies of the 40?s and 50?s, with more hope and less cynicism.

 

I'm going to echo obi-rob and say that this thread has given me a great deal of food for thought. I never bought into the "TPM sucks!" rage - I enjoyed the movie thoroughly, and still do. But AOTC has always been my least favorite movie in the saga, mainly because of the Padme/Anakin romance. And I just realized I haven't been giving AOTC the credit I've been giving TPM.

Ep. I was meant to balance fun and adventure with the very serious undertones of Palpatine's machinations. I understood that. I appreciated Jar Jar as a character meant to make kids laugh, someone who was deceptively simple. Anakin was...a kid. (I really, really love the "It's working! It's wor-king!" scene, because it's so incredibly child-like and real, and it's very poignant considering how Anakin ends up. I always feel a bit of sadness watching him say that with such joy.)

But I went into AOTC expecting something different, and I'm not sure what that was or why I did so. I appreciate everyone here bringing up the point of Lucas writing and directing Padme/Anakin's scenes with the intent of styling it after courtly romance and the 40's era, where you could be melodramatic and say corny things, because it's expected of the era - and because it's expected, it's not melodramatic or corny at all. I'm really looking forward to my next rewatch of AOTC so I can try and see if this new understanding enhances my enjoyment of the film.

 

I love Attack of the Clones; it reminds me in a lot of ways of my favorite of the Indy films, Temple of Doom, because it has a feel that is distinct without being disconnected from what came before (both in terms of chronology and production). Anakin and Padme's romance and the development thereof is cheesy, corny, and awkward, but it's also sweet and endearing, and reminds me of the way that the people behind the 1994 film The Little Rascals portrayed and characterized the romance between Alfalfa and Darla (and Alfalfa's rivalry with Waldo).

I wholeheartedly believe that the Prequels get much more flak than they actually deserve, especially proportionately to the Classic Trilogy; despite dealing with decidedly different themes (politics and tragedy vs. adventure and rebellion), the six films are very stylistically part of a cohesive whole and are very much grounded in the same basic 40s Sci-Fi asthetic, which means that anything that can be leveled against one of the two trilogies - in terms of negatively - can (and, I believe, should) also be leveled against the other trilogy.

 

I thought the style of RT's was very much indebted to the cinema of the late 60's, early 70's. The romance in particular was reminiscent of the style that was popular at that time, think "Butch & Sundance", or the Sicilian interlude in "The Godfather" and many, many other films. The open ended, almost documentary style sequences of the pilots & mechanics just hanging out was also heavily reminiscent of that period of cinema, as opposed to heavily structured American films from the 40's/50's. And when the film goes into that patriotic territory I was reminded more of self-conscious "war" films such as "Patton" than genuine WW2 "propaganda" films. The POW camp break-out was definitely drawing from "The Great Escape" and "Where Eagles Dare" and "The Dirty Dozen" in terms of tone. I wish he'd gone all the way with that subplot & given us a full-on action epic on all fronts! Maybe there's an EE awaiting us...

 

I love AOTC so, so much, it has the same addictive qualities as the other five episodes do.


Besides, there are a ton of things to enjoy in AOTC - it's got a great romance, an intriguing mystery, awesome action, and those quiet scenes that are a welcome change of pace. Plus, visually, it's just beautiful. Every shot could be a painting, it's THAT good. I love how Lucas handled Anakin's character arc, going from completely good in TPM to good but arrogant in this one, it echoes Luke's arc from the OT.


One of the reasons why I (and I'm sure millions agree with me) love Star Wars above any other movie is because it's not JUST an action movie, it's not JUST a romance - it combines all those elements seamlessly to invoke interest and anticipation. That's why I love them. Not only are they never, ever boring, but each scene has something new to offer. Like TPM, for example. You go from a skirmish on the TF ship, to a forest scene on Naboo, meeting a new character, to visiting this amazing underwater city, all in the span of one scene each. There's never a dull moment. Even during exposition scenes, like the dinner scene from TPM, you have comedic elements with Jar Jar, you have character building with Anakin, etc etc.


Compare it to terrible drivel like Inception (a movie I have NO idea why people thought was "intelligent"). The entire movie is flatly colored, just grays and blues. It even manages to make a DREAM WORLD boring, a world where anything and everything should be possible, and it turns it into a yawnfest James Bond rip off. Who uses guns in a dream, seriously? And above all, Inception was boring as hell, almost 3 hours of NOTHING. Did anyone not realize, that instead of going through all that trouble to trick this dude in his dream, just so Leo Dicaprio could see his kids, how about someone fly his kids from America to Europe so he can see them?!! Ugh, so many things wrong with that movie, but back on topic - the Star Wars movies have something for everyone. Kids and adults, even teenage girls can like something in them, and THAT'S why they're so popular decades later, and that's why they're my absolute favorite movies of all time.

 

I disagree about Jar Jar purpose being all about the laughs. In one of these recent threads someone pointed out all the abuse that Jar Jar takes from the characters in the film. He's taken similar abuse from audiences.... and in that audience abuse Lucas' purpose for Jar Jar is revealed.

Just as I believe the Ani-Padme romance is very deliberately designed to make the audience feel as awkward as the characters? I have this idea that Jar Jar is there to reveal our own prejudices (not in the racial sense). I won?t go into the specific details of all the times that Jar Jar is mistreated, ignored, and underestimated in TPM (again, somebody already posted such a list).

Star Wars fans, are a group of people who are often looked down on by outsiders. Fantasy/Sci Fi fans, in general, are depicted as terminally single nerdy geeks, obsessed with escapism, living in their parent?s basement all their lives. We?re portrayed as different, by many, and ridiculed for it.

Jar Jar is ridiculed for his own set of alleged faults (he?s clumsy, hyper, often cowardly). And yet he?s ?human,? he has value that nobody recognizes until he brings the Gungans and Naboo together.

The point is, the more Jar Jar annoys you and the more that characters and fans abuse him? the more inclined that good people should feel to protect him, to stand up for him against bullies.

No doubt the amusement children is one purpose for the creation of Jar Jar, but I think he?s also there to teach kids tolerance and compassion. Meanwhile he reveals our adult faults.

 

P.S: I think mainstream criticism in general has confused people on how to judge movies, books and music, and other art forms in general. Its not about liking this or hating that, in my opinion.

A general rule of good art is that everything in it is there for a reason. The role then, of any good critic or audience member (who thinks critically) is to look at what the artist has given them and then try to understand why and where it fits into the puzzle.

I don?t know if you are familiar with the principle of ?Chekhov?s Gun,? which says ?If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there.?

Too often today people just want to break apart movies and say ?I would have done it different,? or ?I would get rid of that part.? But its not their place to change the art. This is why (I think) Lucas, in his recent retirement statement, was so upset. People (studios and fans) taking your artwork and changing it without your permission? that?s unacceptable to any serious artist.

I believe Lucas is serious about his art and so everything he puts into his art is there for a reason.

 

No doubt the amusement children is one purpose for the creation of Jar Jar, but I think he?s also there to teach kids tolerance and compassion.


Something that many moviegoers and critics failed to learn, unfortunately.

 

Fandom in general is full of know-it-alls and would-be artists who've accomplished nothing in the entertainment industry. The average person watches movies for entertainment, and then gets on with their life when the movie is over. Hardcore fans come up with ultra-specific ideas about how a story should turn out, and then they bash the movie if it's different than what they envisioned. Often, their alternative ideas aren't nearly as good, though they'll never realize that.

The internet is full of people who think they could've done the prequels better, even though they have zero training in writing or filmmaking. I recently came upon a kid's (and he must have been a teenager, given his writing style) supposed fix/reboot of the Prequel Trilogy. It was written in very a broad synopsis style, which was already cheating since it's WAY easier to write a synopsis than it is to hammer out an actual working script. It was full of odd little ideas that wouldn't have improved the movies any for most of the actual audience. The Jedi Order was literally reduced to seven guys in the entire galaxy, which was only for the purpose of making them more elite and badass or something. Yoda was pointlessly reduced to a mysterious background character who only appeared from the shadows during important battles before quickly disappearing again (again just to make him "cool" or something). Mace Windu would unironically drop F-bombs and other profanity while chewing out Anakin, because lolz he's played by Samuel L. Jackson. Anakin was no longer a frustrated young man grappling with attachment issues and fear of loss, but just some cocky guy openly (and stupidly) pursuing a forbidden romance in front of his superiors.

If you're thinking that all these changes would've completely thrown off the themes that Lucas was trying to convey in the actual movies (with the Jedi Order representing outdated customs, institutional stagnation, and an incompassionate approach to mentorship/fatherhood), then you understand my frustration while reading that. I doubt this guy was even aware of what the prequels were trying to say, like 95% of the prequels' detractors. Yet he had the confidence to suggest that he was "fixing" Lucas's mistakes with his summary-level fanfiction.

 

It's the greatest irony. Star Wars, and especially the Prequel Trilogy, is full of themes and messages that the most hardcore SW fans seem to have never picked up on:

Resist anger and hatred. Don't let them consume you. - Many obsessed fans are still occupied with their hatred for years, or even decade old films.

Learn from, and improve upon the past. Don't just mindlessly adhere to tradition. - The Jedi Order fell because it had grown stagnant, refusing to adapt. Many Star Wars fans, however, glorify the past as if anything old is better. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the way things were done in the prequels. But when I see ridiculous posts about how CGI should never be used, or how Harryhausen-like stop motion would've been better, I can't take them seriously. And no, I'm not making up that last part there. I've seen it twice, on two separate forums.

People can be easily misled if you lie and play upon their emotions. - The hardcore fandom is driven by bandwagon group think. Numerous misconceptions and false "problems" with the prequel movies have spread and become memes.

 

I didn't say he was all about the laughs, which is why I added that he was a 'deceptively simple' character. I can't say that I buy the argument that Lucas had this grand message he was trying to convey in the most subtle and ironic of ways...but I do agree that there is a lot more to Jar Jar than meets the eye.

 

Only twice? Dude it's impossible to mention Star Wars on any forum populated by Gen-X types without someone starting in with that "they shoulda used models" spiel.

I can certainly understand why someone would prefer practical effects as a matter of taste. Models and stop motion and muppets and whatnot are pretty darn cool. What I find peculiar is the perception that CGI is an easy-to-effect and inexpensive shortcut technique utilized by the indolent.

 

Whether or not you look at it in terms of the author?s intent, well that is up to you. I tend to think that even bad artists have motives? just by the very nature of how dramatic conflict works? but enough theory.

Personally I also try to always analyze any art within the context of the story world.

Example: Okay so Jar Jar is annoying and clumsy. What effect does his personality have on the story going on around him? People mistreat him and underestimate him. He gets exiled. If he wasn?t exiled he wouldn?t meet Qui Gon and Obi Wan. If he doesn?t meet the Jedi he never meets the Queen. If he doesn?t meet the Queen the Naboo never get the help of the Gungan army to take back the planet. So his presence is functional. But its more than functional. Obi Wan doesn?t want to bring him along. He thinks it?s a waste of time. He thinks of both Jar Jar and Anakin as ?pathetic life forms.? Now it?s a moral issue. Is one life form inherently more valuable than another? Jar Jar proves Obi Wan wrong by uniting both Naboo cultures against the Trade Federation.


Okay, so I guess everybody doesn?t have to dissect movies ?line by line? as you would a poem or a literary masterpiece, but I find it fulfilling?. And its kind of what fans do in fan communities.

As I said in an earlier post, I think too many people go around looking at movies in terms of what they like/dislike and what they would change. They don?t even bother trying to understand what is in front of them.

I?m not suggesting that some movies are not simply crap. But I think the fact that we?re still talking about TPM in 2012 is proof that there is far more going on in the film than the haters are giving Lucas credit for.

 

Extremely well said!! I have been thinking along those lines for years, but you said it so well and succintly.

And I also agree with calling the SW movies "high are in low-brow wrapper". There's a lot of deep stuff in there, if you know how to look for it.

 

With the models versus digital thing I always go back to the several occasions in interviews and documentaries where Lucas explains that digital is no less real than a phyiscal effect. Film is all an illusion. He'd probably also be the fist to tell fans that physical effects get used when its more practical and makes financial sense. I see nothing wrong with that philosophy.

 

Yeah, totally. The art of storytelling in cinema has always been shaped to a considerable extent by what is physically and technologically possible. Using the full extent of technology allows GL to increase the palette, so to speak.

 

I know I?m not saying anything original here? but yeah, and I find it hypocritical that some should list Lucas' use of cutting edge technology as a fault in the prequels when it was, to a large degree, his use of cutting edge technology in 1977, that set Star Wars apart from anything that had come before.

Now I'm not suggesting that cutting edge technology can't be overused/abused. Story always comes first, and the idea is to use only as much technology as it takes to put your story on the screen in the way you?ve envisioned it. And besides, who wants to spend more money than they have to? (this is even more relevant in the case of Lucas who bankrolls his own projects).

No reasonable person ever complained about there being too many special effects in a movie they love. Avatar, for example, is one big special effect, but that?s perfectly okay (for me) because the movie works and I love it.

If you do use more FX than you need to accomplish your vision, then its overkill. The results feel fake, and a keen audience picks up on that. I think this is the real root of many people?s problem with 3D films. Usually, its only a problem for people when they think the movie sucks (whether actually seen it or not.)

Back to Lucas? keep in mind that he has said countless times that a major factor in the 16 year gap between ROTJ and TPM was his wait for the technology to catch up with his vision. Were this not the case we probably would have seen the prequels in the late 80?s and early 90?s, rather than 1999 and beyond.