Is it really Lucas' fault?

Okay, I want to say this one more time, so I can be sure that everyone is getting it: I AM NOT TRYING TO FIND FAULT WITH ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE THE PT! I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE THE PT! All I have been saying is let's not assign blame where it isn't due, okay? Why is it so hard to understand that it's not someone else's fault if you don't like something?

Quixotic: I don't believe there can be an objective way to judge films. It's either you like it or you don't. I haven't seen a system yet that works as objectively as it may claim. So who do we trust, critics? Why? What makes them so much more qualified than any of the rest of us to judge a film? Because they can remember the director of every film ever produced over the last 30 years? Doesn't seem like much of a qualification to me. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most film critics simply don't like movies. They like statements. They like some story that has so many intricate sub-plots and twists that it's almost impossible to follow. And it doesn't hurt if a film is in a foreign language with sub-titles. So what would these objective criteria be? What is the standard that we hold each film up to? And most importantly, who decides that? According to JenX you can't use majority rules, as the vocal minority that I mentioned is resposible for half the good out there. So where is our objective answer? I simply don't see how there can be one, since watching a movie, or reading a book, or sitting around a campfire listening to ghost stories are all such subjective things.

(By the way buddy, I will admit that I agree to a point about the midichlorian thing. I'll give you guys that one; it was a pretty goofy idea to me, although some people liked it. Some people like to have everything explained to them that way. Is it right or wrong? Niether. Just different. And since it didn't affect my enjoyment of the rest of the movie, I just ignore it. But I don't get all mad at Lucas because he put it in there. It simply wasn't my cup of tea.)

Also by the way, I liked Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III much more than I enjoyed Citizen Kane. And I have never been able to force myself to watch all of Casablanca. (But that still doesn't make them bad movies, just movies that I didn't like.

DrEvazan: I need to raise my expectations? Why? So I can go through life being pissed off about anything that I don't like, and pissed at the people who do like it because they don't see my point of view?

Okay, I apologize DrEvazan, and to everyone else. That was uncalled for, but it just struck me as such an absurd idea I couldn't help it. Because I liked something that you didn't I need to raise my expectations? That's insulting, man. We're all fans here, even if we don't agree on this one particular subject. And I did say he's responsible for the films. He admits that. However, the other half of that statement was that because he was responsible for the films, does not make him responsible for your reception of them.

JenX: Now, I have a question. Why do people who liked TPM feel the need to explain away why people didn't like TPM instead of just listening to the people who didn't like TPM and taking on board what they say????????? I have never tried to come up with some ridiculous argument to explain away why people liked it. I just listen to what they say and believe them. So Jedi-Monkey, how about extending the same courtesy to us?

Exactly what courtesy would that be? There's no way to answer this without getting into a personal attack on you, and I am trying very hard not to do that to anyone. As I said before, we are all fans here, we simply don't agree on everything.

How many times have people insinuated that I am not seeing things correctly because I actually like the PT? Is that the courtesy of which you speak? Has anyone come out and said, "You're a mindless, blithering idiot because you don't think Jar Jar was the worst cinematic creation EVER!"? No, at l

 

I'm not going to crucify you, Jedi-Monkey. I'm just going to explain things very clearly, using examples to highlight what I am talking about in the hope that you understand what is being said here.

I said:

"Now, I have a question. Why do people who liked TPM feel the need to explain away why people didn't like TPM instead of just listening to the people who didn't like TPM and taking on board what they say????????? I have never tried to come up with some ridiculous argument to explain away why people liked it. I just listen to what they say and believe them. So Jedi-Monkey, how about extending the same courtesy to us?"

To which you replied

Exactly what courtesy would that be? There's no way to answer this without getting into a personal attack on you, and I am trying very hard not to do that to anyone. As I said before, we are all fans here, we simply don't agree on everything.

Simple. The courtesy is to listen to the criticisms that I and others have instead of reeling off a list of your own that are easy to explain away or mock. I listed the "reasons you don't like TPM" arguments you came up with already, and explained why they don't apply.



...I hopefully won't sound too condescending here, but when you went in to see TPM for the first time, you DID have certain expectations, even if they were just from the trailer. Everyone who went to see the movie had expectations, and yes, for most people those expectations were higher than they would be for a normal film.


Yes. I expected to see a SW film. I expected it to have Obi Wan, a guy with a face like a ladybird, some space battle and a kid with a bowlhead haircut.

I didn't have high expectations for TPM. I'm going to make this point very clear, so you cannot misinterpret it. TPM didn't disappoint me because it failed to meet my high expectations. I'm not one of those fans who thought it was really good, but with some serious faults. I'm not one of those fans who thought it was a seriously flawed film. I'm one of those SW fans who thought TPM was awful. Dire, from start to finish. If I had gone into TPM expecting to see the worst film of all time then it might, might have exceeded my expectations (by a small margin)...but guess what? I would still think that it was an awful film.



Now, let's look at a couple of things you have said:

All I have been saying is let's not assign blame where it isn't due, okay? Why is it so hard to understand that it's not someone else's fault if you don't like something?

and:

Now, I'm not praising George Lucas for making a great movie with TPM or AOTC. I'm simply thanking him for a movie that I enjoyed.

Right, you see what you are doing there? You are acknowledging that the creator of the story had some part to play in your reaction to it. You liked it, so you thanked him. I didn't like it, so I criticised him.

That is the point you are utterly failing to recognise, Jedi-Monkey. If you cannot fault someone for creating something you didn't like then you cannot thank them for creating something you did like. Either both positions are equally valid or they are both equally invalid.


You know what the key to all these statements is? I thought it sucked. My dislike of the movie. I haven't overanaylsed TPM or AOTC. I thought the film was incredibly boring. Do we see a pattern developing here? These are all your opinions, and again I am not saying there's anything wrong with them. I, and a lot of other people, simply don't share them. And again, all they do is point out why you didn't like the movie.


There is a pattern!

You're right! This means that my opinions must be.....wait for it......my opinions!!!

[face_shocked] [face_shocked] [face_shocked]




That's amazing! Thanks for taking the time to tell me that my opinions are my opinions, and that they merely point out what I think. I don't find that utterly redundant or condescending in the least!




No, really.

[face

 

"Because I liked something that you didn't I need to raise my expectations? That's insulting, man."

oh, so you basically are saying here that telling the rest of us that did'nt like something you did because our expectations are too high is ok? ill note the insult and add it to the tally.

"However, the other half of that statement was that because he was responsible for the films, does not make him responsible for your reception of them."

therefore if he is not responsible for the audiences reception of them he cannot be credited with any POSITIVE reaction either.

man you need to take a breath and think about what you are saying because in that last rant you contradicted yourself about ten times, on top of insulting other fans on this board, and making several hypocritcal remarks that i dont think you are even aware of.

dont try playing the victim here with your "go ahead and crucify me". you are the one who started with this expectations nonsense.

oh and: YES!!! IT REALLY IS LUCAS' FAULT!

 

Quixotic: I don't believe there can be an objective way to judge films. It's either you like it or you don't. I haven't seen a system yet that works as objectively as it may claim. So who do we trust, critics? Why? What makes them so much more qualified than any of the rest of us to judge a film? Because they can remember the director of every film ever produced over the last 30 years? Doesn't seem like much of a qualification to me. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most film critics simply don't like movies. They like statements. They like some story that has so many intricate sub-plots and twists that it's almost impossible to follow. And it doesn't hurt if a film is in a foreign language with sub-titles. So what would these objective criteria be? What is the standard that we hold each film up to? And most importantly, who decides that? According to JenX you can't use majority rules, as the vocal minority that I mentioned is resposible for half the good out there. So where is our objective answer? I simply don't see how there can be one, since watching a movie, or reading a book, or sitting around a campfire listening to ghost stories are all such subjective things.

Well, my criticisms stem from what the author claims to be doing. Lucas has stated repeatedly that he is trying to craft a modern myth - as such, I look at the standards and paradigmatic examples of mythology - Campbell, Frazier, et al. who have shaped the field, as well as Lucas' opinions on the matter, as well as the existent myths referenced in popular culture - Merlin and the Arthurian Legends, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Greek and Norse mythology, etc. These set standards and influenced how subsequent myths were constructed and retold. If the saga measures up in terms of thematic content, symbolism, etc., then it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. GL offers something new, a departure from mythology, and the first chapter of the saga is something less than the later chapter, hence, it is subpar. This ties in with the second objective standard.

GL, in crafting his saga, offers both a mythological offering and a literary offering (cinema being understood as a subdivision of literature). As such, he can be judged by how well characterization is employed, as well as story structure, plot, thematic elements, etc. If these are lacking or poorly developed, it is subpar. "Enjoyment" is not germane to such considerations, hence, it is possible to enjoy bad movies.

Notice that none of this is dependent upon a third party critic - I take GL at face value. He tells me that he wants to do X. I learn about X to see if he is doing X. If he states he is doing X and ends up with Y, he has not done X, which is bad. If he states he is doing X and he ends up with X-1, he is still doing X, but doing X poorly. Examining Lucas' stated goals demonstrates X-1 in many (not "most" or "all") of his stated goals with TPM, which makes it a good effort with poor results.

This same kind of critique has been applied quite cogently here by those who focus on the technical aspects of film production, much in the same manner as I focus on the literary and mythological elements (literary theory).

You fiat the non-existence of objective criteria by which to judge the films, and that is simply the stumbling block between reconciling your opinion and mine. Quite simply, you deny what I affirm.

(By the way buddy, I will admit that I agree to a point about the midichlorian thing. I'll give you guys that one; it was a pretty goofy idea to me, although some people liked it. Some people like to have everything explained to them that way. Is it right or wrong? Niether. Just different. And since it didn't affect my enjoyment of the rest of the movie, I just ignore it. But I don't get all mad at Lucas because he put it in there. It simply wasn't my cup of tea.)

Also by the way, I liked Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III much more than I enjoyed Citizen Kane. And I have never been able to force myself to watch all of Casablanca. (But that still doesn't mak

 

Okay, last time because this is getting tedious, and so far Quixotic is the only one here who has actually, IMO attempted to discuss this in an informed, intelligent manner.

JenX: I said "Exactly what courtesy would that be? There's no way to answer this without getting into a personal attack on you, and I am trying very hard not to do that to anyone. As I said before, we are all fans here, we simply don't agree on everything.

How many times have people insinuated that I am not seeing things correctly because I actually like the PT? Is that the courtesy of which you speak? Has anyone come out and said, "You're a mindless, blithering idiot because you don't think Jar Jar was the worst cinematic creation EVER!"? No, at least not that I've seen. But that might be simply because they are relatively certain they'll be banned, or at least warned for doing that, not becuase they don't think so. It's certainly been insinuated enough times. Maybe that's the courtesy? Or I'm a moron because I don't think ESB is the best of the bunch, and in fact would rank it third if I was going to rank the movies seperately instead of as one story? (ANH, AOTC, ESB, TPM, ROTJ, just in case you were wondering. Although the last two switch back and forth depending on my mood and whether or not I want to watch Princess Leia in a metal bikini. ) Is this the courtesy of which you are telling me? I'm just curious."

You answered with this: "Simple. The courtesy is to listen to the criticisms that I and others have instead of reeling off a list of your own that are easy to explain away or mock. I listed the "reasons you don't like TPM" arguments you came up with already, and explained why they don't apply."

I'm not sure that answers the question, but, um, okay. There is a problem though. This thread wasn't about those faults you and other people found with the movie. As with your crying about my use of the "all the same old tired, worn out "reasons people don't like TPM" arguments that I've heard a billion times before", I've listened to all your reasons for not liking the movie. I have heard them "a billion times before," I have already stated I have no problem with them, or with anyone who holds those views. All that is telling me is when I say it's not Lucas' fault you didn't like the movie, you reiterate the reasons you didn't like it, like that will suddenly clear things up.

But come to think of it, to some extent that's what I have been doing too, so I suppose this misunderstanding would have to be half my fault as well. I apologize for that.

Oh, and the only thing you explained away is the reasons why my reasons don't work for you.

Yes. I expected to see a SW film. I expected it to have Obi Wan, a guy with a face like a ladybird, some space battle and a kid with a bowlhead haircut.

I don't understand. If those were your only expectations then you would have loved the film. It had those elements.

Right, you see what you are doing there? You are acknowledging that the creator of the story had some part to play in your reaction to it. You liked it, so you thanked him. I didn't like it, so I criticised him.

That is the point you are utterly failing to recognise, Jedi-Monkey. If you cannot fault someone for creating something you didn't like then you cannot thank them for creating something you did like. Either both positions are equally valid or they are both equally invalid.

When did I say he had something to do with my reaction? I didn't say that at all. I did say he had something to do with Star Wars, but never what I thought of it. There are people, (as hard as it seems to us to believe, ) who absolutely loathe the OT. Do we blame George Lucas for that? I have a couple of friends who prefer the PT so far. Should they blame George Lucas because the OT doesn't measure up to this new adventure? I never said Lucas had nothing to do with Star Wars. I simply stated he had nothing to do with the way you received it. I wish you would stop confusing the two.

If y

 

I'm sorry guys, I've gotten lost in the point-counterpoint style posting!

If it's anyone's fault then it is GL's.

Why?

Simply using the logic that if everyone liked the PT then it would be GL's doing.

Bashers blame GL for the PT being awful.
Gushers praise GL for the PT being good.

It's not like a football game (that's real football) where if a team wins it's the players, and if it loses, it's the manager.

Actually... YES! It's Rick McCallum's fault! Burn him!

 

I'm waiting for someone's hand to fall off from all this typing...
them to go blind from staring at a computer screen so long or...
have a stroke, 'cause they are taking things was too seriously.

In a way, if one or all of these things occured it would be sad, actually, it would be funnier than sad.

 

LOL Punisher. Thanks for that much needed injection

 

Thanks for noticing... I'm just trying to prevent someone from going onto a water tower with a rifle & a scope. (Or at least from being crucified)

This whole dicussion is on the level of the "I know you are, but what am I" routine... except those are bigger (& more) words being used to say that.

I still say, The Phantom Menace is to blame.

EDIT: GL MAY NOT be to blame, but I'm sure that he's more than willing to take the money that the film made.

 

As with your crying about my use of the "all the same old tired, worn out "reasons people don't like TPM" arguments that I've heard a billion times before", I've listened to all your reasons for not liking the movie. I have heard them "a billion times before," I have already stated I have no problem with them, or with anyone who holds those views. All that is telling me is when I say it's not Lucas' fault you didn't like the movie, you reiterate the reasons you didn't like it, like that will suddenly clear things up.

Firstly I wasn't "crying" about anything. Secondly I didn't give you my views on TPM as a means of countering your argument that it wasn't GL fault for me not liking the films. Go back and read my post again. I did it to respond to the reasons YOU gave for why people didn't like TPM.

My point, which you have failed to comprehend again is that you should not invent easily mocked or easily countered arguments for why people dislike TPM. I don't come up with silly reasons to explain away why you like it, so I would like it if you returned the courtesy.

I said, regarding expectations:

"Yes. I expected to see a SW film. I expected it to have Obi Wan, a guy with a face like a ladybird, some space battle and a kid with a bowlhead haircut."

To which you replied:

I don't understand. If those were your only expectations then you would have loved the film. It had those elements.

No, you don't understand. Meeting expectations does not = enjoyment. Getting what I expected may be one small element in why I enjoy something, but there are many, many more important ones.

If your Grandma gives you $100.00 for your birthday, do you not thank her? (I would like to think so.) But if your birthday comes and goes, and Grandma doesn't give you that check, do you get upset with her? Start blaming her for the disillusionment that was your birthday? Thanking someone for something they've given you is a courtesy.

Whoa, hold on there. That example is bizarre. I paid to go and see TPM. Trying to equate GL and TPM with a check from Grandma makes no sense at all.

TPM wasn't a gift that GL gave to me. It was a product that I purchased.

George Lucas is the name attached to a movie I enjoyed. I thank him for that. Simple courtesy. You seem to be big on courtesy, so that should be an easy one for you.

So, would you have thanked him for the product you purchased if you hadn't enjoyed it?

My views on therapy come from experience. My own experience, when I was a child, when I was going through my divorce, when I was going through depression. I have also seen the 'results' of friends and family after going through therapy. Not in one instance have they ended up better off than when they started. I stand by what I said about therapy, and I will until I see something different from them.

Good for you. I stand by what I said about your experience of therapy. It is extremely limited. If you wish to make sweeping generalisations about things you know little about then go ahead.

Happy I could be entertaining, but sorry I said something so beyond you.

It wasn't beyond me. I understood what you said perfectly. I just disagree with the idea that praising GL is just a means of setting him up as a scapegoat for when he makes something I don't like. Unfortunately you don't praise him and are therefore not in a position to acertain the lack of truth in your belief.

As someone who does praise him I could see the gigantic error you had made. Hence my reaction.

 

TPM WASN'T the fault of Lucas. TPM was the fault of Lucas' vision.

Hey, now THAT was a good one! To paraphase Han Solo: "You know, sometimes I amuse even myself".

Yep, I realize that's not too hard.

 

Jedi-Monkey, since you referenced a lack of personal responsibility in modern society, I assume that you are a moralist (as opposed to a moral relativist). In that case, you might want to read the first chapter of C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man and consider whether objective aesthetic value is really separable from objective moral value.

I'm sort of the reverse of you (or, to be fair, my assumption about you). I'm not convinced there is a objective moral code (unless it is to maximize the happiness of the greatest number, which is really no code at all), but I think that it is possible to evaluate the quality of art in objective terms. At least, if you accept that there is something called art separate from mere entertainment, you have to accept that art has a quality (in varying degrees) that entertainment lacks. Whether a piece of art is good or bad then depends on the amount of this quality it contains.

If my assumption about your moral outlook is off-base, I apologize. But you should read the essay anyway because it is both interesting and a classic piece of (anti-)modern philosophy.

 

It is nobody's fault. no mistake was made. taste differ and no one is at fault for liking or disliking something. No one's fault.

 

no ones fault, except George Lucas.

"Wait a second here. When you say that exact thing to me in reverse it's okay, but when I say it to you, it's an insult? Speaking of needing to take a breath and think about what you're saying."

you really cant even see what your saying anymore because of your obvious frustration at your repeated contradictions and confusion, so ill just let you go ahead and implode in a big ball of hypocracy.

 

Heh heh...

The troublemakers stop posting here and the thread disappears.

Now THAT's funny.

I wonder where we're spouting silliness and causing trouble now?

 

Curious.

 

I'm not speaking to all "bashers" of course, but I know some do indeed blame Lucas for screwing up the PT (mainly TPM). Some say he has lost his touch, and that he screwed up the story. But is this really Lucas' fault?

YES 100%

Because he is such a control freak now. When you abandon most of the great people that got you there, this is what you get in the end: TPM and AOTC.

Lucas talks about the boot lickers in jedi that are servants to the emperor and Vader despised of them.

The funny thing is Lucas now plays the role of the emperor and all his servants help him make bad movies. I GUESS THAT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE I'M DARTH VADER?

 

Lucas seems to be putting at least as much effort into thr prequels as he did the classic trilogy. I like the prequels and I can't wait to see how he brings the classic trilgoy up to date with them.

Even if you don't like them, you can't blame the man for sticking to his artistic vision and seeing it through.

 

YES! its his fault. The "Its good enough" attitude is just another one of GL's copouts for laziness and lack of passion. Just like his interviews over the years since the OT. He constantly changes his mind and his 'yes' men that work for him revolve their work around his wishes. And ep3 will just be the preverbial cherry on the crap sundae for the BS-PT. And the explanation from GL will be a bratty "its my vision and i meant for it to be this way"

 

YES! its his fault. The "Its good enough" attitude is just another one of GL's copouts for laziness and lack of passion

No, it's called saving time and money. Every filmaker does it. Even the glorious Peter Jackson.

Just like his interviews over the years since the OT. He constantly changes his mind and his 'yes' men that work for him revolve their work around his wishes. And ep3 will just be the preverbial cherry on the crap sundae for the BS-PT. And the explanation from GL will be a bratty "its my vision and i meant for it to be this way"

First of all, I have constantly heard people say Lucas is surrounded by yes-men. I have NEVER seen any indication of this. Unless you give me evidence Lucas is surrounded by yes-men, or that even if he is or isn't, that he did, or did not when he did the OT, then please stop saying this.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure GL likes what he's done with the PT. He finally get's to show the epic-sized scope he wanted. And he doesn't need to explain to anybody why some people didn't like it. He doesn't need to forgive the fans who's live he "ruined".

 

I reckon it's my cat's fault. Each time I ask her about The Phantom Menace, she changes the subject. I have a feeling there's something going on there.

 

Secondly, I'm pretty sure GL likes what he's done with the PT. He finally get's to show the epic-sized scope he wanted. And he doesn't need to explain to anybody why some people didn't like it. He doesn't need to forgive the fans who's live he "ruined".

Well put. Without being pressured by a studio into what he has to include in a film, Lucas has been able to make every film in the SW saga as he chooses. If you bought a Star Wars mug, congrats, but it doesn't mean you should have the definitive say-so over how a film goes.

 

It's not being "bratty" to make your movie the way you want to make it. How dare you accuse him of not caring about his own work.

I happen to like the prequels so far, and think they are at least as good as the classic trilogy. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch them.

Go show us -your- idea of passion and great moviemaking.

 

Go show us -your- idea of passion and great moviemaking.

LOTR, the Godfather movies (well, 1 and 2), and several others, including many Kurosawa flicks (HF, Seven Samurai, Ran, and Rashoman to name a few) as well as the OT.

 

Hmm, those movies are about as good as TPM, bring me movies that are better than TPM.