Is it really Lucas' fault?

Sure, he made some witty puns and came up with some inventive zingers. It's just that most of it had little to do with the film itself.

Um, I think bad dialogue has a lot to do with "the film itself." He also complained about the bad acting, and the fact that the story in general was unnecessary and unentertaining. Those have a lot to do with "the film itself."



Would you take his opinion before trusting your own?

No, but then I've been well-educated regarding film myself, and I have taste. Were I hampered with poor taste in film and the utter inability to discern what an artistically successful, or "good" film constitutes, I would indeed take Mr. Ansen's opinion into account.



Closer inspection would reveal that Sidious never sent Maul to kill Amidala, merely to retrieve her to sign the treaty.

Closer inspection would bring up the question of why they needed her to sign the treaty at all...and besides, your answer is nonsense, considering the fact that while escaping from the planet, the Queen and her ship were heavily fired upon by the Federation ship. Explain this apparent inconsistency in the villain's motivation, if you please.



I noticed that Lucas wanted to keep the secrets of the film for opening night.

What secrets? TPM had no twist.



He was gracious enough to allow them to view the film early, so that they could have as much time as they needed to put their reviews together for opening day,

Gracious? "Uh, thank you for letting us see your bloated banal overhyped blockbuster a week or two early, Mr. Lucas. You're a saint."



and all he asked was that they waited for that day.

Why? There were no plot twists to hide.



If he were really trying to hide the actual quality of the film, why not make them wait until opening day like everyone else?

Because the buzz will turn hellaciously negative on a film that won't even screen for critics at all. It's outright admitting you've made garbage. Trying to hold back reviews is the same priciple, but less definite.



It's not like they took the week to come up with those scathing rants they tried to pass off as intelligent consideration of the film in question.

Perhaps they were saving their intelligent consideration for considerably intelligent films, and not TPM.

And with that ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

Can we take this to mean you know Mr. Lucas personally? You seem to think you know his mind, so that would imply some sort of close relationship. Can you get me his autograph?

Weak, an attempt to diffuse valid arguments by going on unrelated tangents. Sidetracking, in other words.



Is Titanic a better movie than The Godfather? I don't think so. I don't think Titanic is better than Son-in-Law with Pauly Shore.

Two absolutely esoteric comments. Considering that Godfather is more critically loved than Titanic, and Titanic is more critically loved than Son In Law, I have no clue what point you thought you were even making in the above section.



That would be in your opinion only. The whole point of taste in film is that it's subjective. Everyone's taste is different, and none is better than anyone else's.

If you think TPM is a good film, mine is better than yours. And again, one of you says "only" when in fact it is my opinion and is shared by the vast majority of critics and fans of film.



Stop insinuating that we are not as smart as you because we don't share your point of view.

I didn't insinuate it. Maybe you just know how things are and are insecure because of it. A bit of a complex.



Yes, sometimes the crowd does form for a reason. Like people wanting something to belong to. People want to be part of the 'in' crowd, and currently, the 'in' crowd wants to bash Star Wars.

Are you joking? The "in" crowd doesn't talk about Star Wars one way or another.



And could you be more insulting?

Be patient.



People who know good films? By implication there, anyone who actually liked this movie that you didn't doesn't know good film.

I didn't imply it, I said it.



99% huh? I suppose you handled the exit polls at all the theaters around the world yourself? You seem awfully sure of that statement, but offer little proof to back it up.

Again, you go on a tangent that has little point in the real argument. You want my proof, check the user comments and external reviews of TPM at the IMDb. That's as close to proof as anything could be, and you can't offer anything nearly as solid as it in evidence that TPM was not a critical failure.



"Professional critic" is almost an oxymoron. All they are doing is giving their opinion of something. So what if they get paid for it. That doesn't mean they know everything, or can accurately judge the quality of a subjective medium.

Actually, they don't just "get paid for it," they studied it, they've seen more films in each year of their lives than normal people do in their entire lives, and they usually have gone to school for journalism and film.



You DO realize that a VERY SMALL percentage of the movie-going public actually visits sites like IMDb, right?

Your logic here is shaky at best. In an experiment or poll, even the most scientific and official ones, a "very small" percentage of the total is tested or polled. That doesn't discount the validity, since at a certain point the number tested or polled is indeed a broad and large enough demographic so that the results can accurately reflect how things actually are on a global scale.



What I do think would be an interesting study would be to find out how many of the people on IMDb are also HERE, posting their anti-PT venom. Just a thought.

This is scarily naive. The IMDb is global and GIGANTIC and has as little to do with this tiny (in comparison) site and messageboard as possible.



Ah, but how many of those reviews did you read in 1972? I would be willing to bet not too many.

Um, considering The Godfather swept the 72 Oscars, I'm fairly sure it was well-reviewed in its day. The Oscars reflect the critical response to a film when it is in release. And yes, I've read many original reviews of it. So there.



This would be an excellent example of all in your opinion. If you read these boards, you can't help but notice the many people who DON'T think it was

And with that ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

You never had a case.

Well, if you say so.

Wow. Talk about never having a case. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that your OPINION is more valid than anyone else's. And it is simply your opinion. You can quote whatever you want, flash whatever 'credentials' someone else has that you want, but in the end they are still just your opinions, and you know that. So my question is, do you have a point to make, or are you simply here to pretend you know something that all of us morons don't?

Weak, an attempt to diffuse valid arguments by going on unrelated tangents. Sidetracking, in other words.

So far, the ONLY 'valid argument' you have made is that YOU don't like the movie. There was no sidetracking involved here. I was responding directly to your comment.

Two absolutely esoteric comments. Considering that Godfather is more critically loved than Titanic, and Titanic is more critically loved than Son In Law, I have no clue what point you thought you were even making in the above section.

Although speaking of sidestepping.

If you think TPM is a good film, mine is better than yours. And again, one of you says "only" when in fact it is my opinion and is shared by the vast majority of critics and fans of film.

63% of reviews were positive. I guess that would mean the 'vast majority' of critics do not, in fact, share your opinion. As for the fans, I ask again, have you talked to them ALL? Until you do that, you have no basis for this argument.

By the way, until I see that note from God stating that your opinion is better than mine, I'm gonna have to assume they are still equal. Although I somehow manage to find ways to express it without throwing personal insults at the people who don't share it. (Most of the time.) Also by the way, doing said insulting is a good sign that your arguments are rather weak. Among other things.

I didn't insinuate it. Maybe you just know how things are and are insecure because of it. A bit of a complex.

Someone around here has a bit of a complex, that's for sure. A God complex maybe. They do make pills for that.

Are you joking? The "in" crowd doesn't talk about Star Wars one way or another.

More sidestepping. You seem to be doing that more and more.

Be patient.

Uh-huh. Just checking.

I didn't imply it, I said it.

So again, what makes you think you are so much better than everyone else? The whole idea behind opinion is that it cannot be wrong. However, since several of your 'facts' have been proven wrong...

Again, you go on a tangent that has little point in the real argument. You want my proof, check the user comments and external reviews of TPM at the IMDb. That's as close to proof as anything could be, and you can't offer anything nearly as solid as it in evidence that TPM was not a critical failure.

The IMDb thing has already been debunked, so you'll have to try again. There was no tangent involved there, you simply cannot answer the question honestly and accurately in a way that will back up your argument. And I have offered you evidence, as have other people. You have chosen to ignore it simply because you do not like the film, and seem to have a hard time accepting that others don't feel the same as you. But after reading your posts, I will admit you do seem to know a thing or two about tangents.

Actually, they don't just "get paid for it," they studied it, they've seen more films in each year of their lives than normal people do in their entire lives, and they usually have gone to school for journalism and film.

And yet, in the end all they are doing is offering their opinion.

Your logic here is shaky at best. In an experiment or poll, even the most scientific and official ones, a "very small" percentage of the total is tested or polled. That doesn't discount the validity, since at a certain point the number tested or polled is indeed a broad and large enough demographic so that the results can accurately reflect how things actually are on a global scale.

So the next question is, why did Sidious want Darth Maul to get Padme to sign the treaty? What would that have accomplished?

why did Sidious want Darth Maul to get Padme to sign the treaty? What would that have accomplished?

I'll try to answer this.
I think the treaty is an option which if it had worked,would have achieved the same result as in TPM, which is Palpatine becoming Supreme Chancellor, because Palpatine would have used the treaty by the trade federation and the allowance of Chancellor Valorum to accept it, as means to show how corrupt the the current regime was. And thus allow a vote of no confidence and then a new Chancellor to be elected.

Sit a ten year old in front of Apocalypse Now or the Godfather and ask him if it's as good as Star Wars. Actually, just ask if he can sit through them without getting bored...

>>>Perspective is necessary here.

Exactly. "A great many things depend on our own point of view."

Incidentally, what I class as my favourite film/album/book and the best film/album/book of all time very rarely match.

Does that mean that I don't know a good film when I see it, or that it's possible to make a distinction between one's personal feelings for something and it's quality?

>>>I'm sorry, I'll trust the ability of a well-respected major film critic to understand a film and review it long before I trust the opinion of a diehard Lucas supporter with no credentials in film criticism.

I'm a published film cricket. Do you trust me more?

If you do, then you shouldn't, since I know no more about films since being published than I did before.

Monkey & Devotchka-

It's fine to have spirited opinions and vociferously defend your positions. What isn't fine is suggesting that there are psychological complexes at work or that there is other psychopathology at work in the other poster. You don't have to agree with each other, but you do have to be civil and respectful to one another or you take a vacation from the boards.

Gomer, have you seen Apocalypse Now? The statement that it's on the same level as TPM (which you say about every film classic) leads me to believe you just never seen these movies and you're making blind assumptions. And it sounds as if every film classic has to live up to TPM, not the other way around. TPM is the new kid on the block. If anything, IT has to prove itself in this field of classics. And I would sure like to see it last for 60 years, or even 30 years. (It won't)

Another thing, George gets picked on because he has FAULTS. I don't see Spielberg bashing or Soderberg or Scorsese bashing because they don't put junk in their movies. They deliver work of high quality on a consistent basis, and they put a lot of thought and intellect into their work. Sure, they may stumble every now and then, but they don't screw it up too much. Lucas, on the other hand, has spent over $300 MILLION dollars and has put in some of the cheapest, inane dialogue and acting in his past two, over-hyped films. And he even goes on to say that the bad dialogue and acting was meant to be that way, which is absurd. I think any criticism the PT has gotten, and will continue to get, is warranted.

Your statement about what you thought I said shows you didn't read my post.

I said they both had so much going for each of them that it would be hard to say one is expressly better.

It is made especially difficult when you realize they are such radically different kinds of films (different genre, different approach entirely).

I find it difficult to even compare the two. Apocolypse now does things TPM doesn't do, but then again TPM does things Apocolypse now doesn't do either.

As far as TPM "lasting" of course it will. It will around as long as Apocolypse Now will be.

Beleive it or not every human being on the face of the planet has faults. Spielberg made "Hook" and "The Flintstones Movie". So it isn't like he is some kind of film making God or something.

What did you think of Apocalypse Now's "Ride of the Valkyries" scene?

Btw, George Lucas was going to direct Apoc Now. He went on to do ANH. I think George did the right move.

I think the Valkrie's scene was one of the best parts of the movie.

Yeah It's hard to tell what Lucas would have done with Apocolypse Now, but now that we have the one we have, I can't imagine it being replaced by anyone else's version.

I'm still waiting for that quote from Nada revealing Lucas' artistic qualms with TPM.

But I won't hold my breath.

I don't see Spielberg bashing or Soderberg or Scorsese bashing because they don't put junk in their movies. They deliver work of high quality on a consistent basis, and they put a lot of thought and intellect into their work.

1941
Hook
Continental Divide
Young Sherlock Holmes
Gremilins 2
Arachnophobia
The Flintstones
Casper


Yeah, you're right. No junk there. Just high quality.

Come back to me with a list of directed movies, not executive-produced fodder. There's so much that can go wrong on producing that it doesn't always represent the vision of whoever is producing. Good producer could be married to crap director, so the result can easily be garbage.

Unless you want me to bring up Howard the Duck and RadioLand Murders, two egregious misfires and the butt of many jokes.

Every filmmakers has faults, but the faults of Scorsese, Spielberg, and even James Cameron don't reach the levels of absurdity like GL.

Eh, Spielberg directed "1941" and "Hook". Let's not forget about "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" and "Amistad".

George Lucas is a visual director. He's never labeled himself as being anything more.

Damn. I was gonna point those out, but JediSpeedos beat me to it. Those are indeed movies that Mr. Spielberg directed.

I know those particular ones were Spielberg-directed movies. (I'm the type that memorizes filmographies of many filmmakers, call me weird -- I was just addressing the movies like Gremlins 2 and Flintstones)

The man has over 30 movies in his career and he has flopped occasionaly (and I liked Amistad so you can call it a flop if you want, I just didn't think it was...) but I do not think he is devoid of talent or that he lacks a sensible brain in his head. I think he has all the tools, the creativity, and the heart of a good filmmaker and I have confidence that he'll continue to do so. And even with a few setbacks I don't doubt his ability for a second. I believe he genuinely knows what's needed to fashion a good film. (If he flopped constantly, then I'd criticize him for it to, but he hasn't.)

Now, my argument is that I don't think George Lucas is like that. I'm not so sure he has a good grasp of the fundamentals of good acting, good writing (save for ANH and American Graffiti 25 years ago). He has strengths in story and effects (which I feel he goes overboard on sometimes) but those are secondary elements when it comes to a good film. (No matter how many people ignore this) The moment George Lucas gets out of this Star Wars thing and makes a non-Star Wars movie and can make it good-to-great, I my opinion may change. (if he does 3 or 4 good ones) But from what I see in the PT, I can easily understand why GL is under fire from critics because I personally see the same flaws they are hitting him on.

[edit -grammar, me type too fast]

I never said Spielberg was a horrible director. In fact, he's on top of the heap in my book when it comes to directors. I can't think of any directors that have the resume that he has. But he's not perfect, and, frankly, I'm not saying he should be.

That said, George Lucas is a different kind of director. I don't buy the argument that he doesn't care about story (not that you, JohnWilliams, have said this, but that is what I've read repeatedly in reviews). I see a ton of storytelling in both prequels. As to whether he's doing a competent job telling that story, that's up to interpretation. But he does care. The DVD documentaries are proof of this. The majority of the time, he's explaining the connections to the OT, symbolism, motifs, and repeated themes teaming in the prequels. As for his ability to direct human actors, he's not the greatest, but, again, he never said he was. As more things change, more things stay the same. George Lucas is simply reaffirming his style and nuance in these prequels. That might be the essence of the problem many have with the new films, though. They're expecting something that was never there to begin with. Star Wars hasn't changed. They have.

George Lucas is a visual director. He's never labeled himself as being anything more.

That sounds kind of like a flimsy excuse on par with "I'm an artist, but I can only draw comic-style." Besides, I don't recall American Graffiti really being a "visual movie"... it was more of an ensemble piece.

Shouldn't a director be able to command both good visuals and good performance? A Clockwork Orange immediately comes to mind -- a sci-fi film with superb imagery, a tight script, fantastic acting, guts, and last but not least, DAVID PROWSE!

That's not an excuse. I'd say it's quite an accurate description of the connection between Lucas and his Star Wars myth.

Star Wars hasn't changed. They have.

Very well said.

If Star Wars has not changed since ANH and ESB then can you please point out where the ten year olds are found in those movies? Or at which scenes are cartoon sound effects added in? If Star Wars hasent changed then why does Han Solo shoot first now?

-----signature-----
"Rabid Balding Ewok, you make me sick.
If there was an enemies list, you'd be on mine."


:::*::(^^) :(^^) :::::::
::::::/::::^^:::::\ ::*::
:::::/###-^^-##I :::::
: *:.l##/(*)# (*)\\:::::
:::/##(###.00#)#I ::::
::(___/#*#(XXX)/__) ::
::/000{{{{www}}}}\:: Ewoks Will Eat You!