*OFFICIAL THREAD* Media articles, interviews and reviews for Revenge of the Sith. V.2.

I don't get what you mean by original?
Yes, machines are generally built by human beings and lots of films already have examples of this.

He put it in to illustrate how technically gifted Anakin was at such an early age, that is the prmary reason.
It works on another level, in that C-3PO and R2-D2 are important in so many more ways when we watch the OT.
The idea was to have one of the droids linked to Padmé - R2 is in the service of the house of Amidala - and the other linked to Anakin - who is building a protocol droid to help his mother.
Those two driods become symbolic.
They are, essentially, brought together by Padmé and Anakin's affair.
Ironically they remain together after Padmé has died and Anakin has "died" and we see how important the two droids become to their children, and the role they play in redeeming Ani and Padders.
I think TPM was written the way it was for a reason - you can look at it and say "Vader built 3PO, cool!" if you want, but I don't think that was all Lucas had on his mind - just look at the path 3PO and R2 take and what they do throughout the saga.

Surely that is quite original, then?
I know I wasn't really expecting it.
What would have been original? The clouds parting and 3PO riding down on a flaming chariot surrounded by Ewoks?
On the one hand you say it is a cheap twist, on the other it is mundane and unoriginal. Even if you don't like the twist, you must appreciate it is "original". It can't be both.

That was an idea which has been around since the early drafts of the TESB script. Boba was always linked to the genesis of the Stormtroopers in one way or another.
Originally it was going to be Lando.
Ironically, it was not initially Lucas' idea to put this into AOTC, it was suggested in concept art for which the artist (I forget which one) had gone back and referenced those TESB drafts and brought back the concept of clones being a derivative of "Boba".

No, it is not original, in the sense that it was concieved - more or less - in 1978/79.
The name Jango is new, and the idea that it is he rather than his son who is the "clone template" - but the plot point is essentially the same.

I think you are misreading it though.
That's the kind of conclusion people jump to - it's like saying Bruce Wayne sees his parents killed and seeks revenge purely on the perpatrator of that crime.
He does not, he is inspired to mete out justice on a grander scale.
It is not just about revenge, his life is given a greater purpose by what happens to him.
That is how I saw Boba.
He doesn't become a Bounty Hunter to "get revenge" on Mace Windu.
He becomes a vigilante, a hired hand, someone operating to his own law, because he has seen the law fail him, and seen people fail him.
He is just hardened by the experience.
He becomes withdrawn and bitter - and every punk he turns in, dead or alive, for a fee is his "revenge".

 

<<I know people who loved the film back in May who are now agreeing that it was one of the worst movies of 2005. This zombie-like attitude is downright scary.>>


Who are these people? Movie critics? Everyone I saw ROTS with loved it or liked it back in May, and they still love or like it. One begs the question, how can you "love" something, then "hate" it several months later? Only very strange people, IMHO. Certainly, they are people without any hard-felt core values, to be easily swayed around so easily.

The way I see it, who cares about what some wishy-washy critics think of ROTS? Who reads the Washington Post or the New York Times? I don't....I don't know anyone who does. It did have an 82% fresh rating at RT....that's good. The average American movie-going public enjoyed it....$380 million's worth (#1 B.O. in 2005)....it sold well in DVD format (over 10 million copies - and counting, domestically). That means the average American movie-goer liked the movie well enough to buy it on DVD. I really don't see what the all the angst is over this. In fact, ROTS may even win the People's Choice Award for favorite movie of the year. We will know that on January 10. If the contest is fair & objective, it should win, IMHO. But, even if it doesn't, it's still my favorite movie of the year, and that's what counts.

The only movie critics that the average person pays any attention to was the Siskel & Ebert team....now the Ebert & Roeper team of critics..things like," hey, did you hear what Ebert said about that film?"...the "thumbs up or down" crowd. They both gave ROTS "thumbs up". So what if they didn't put it on their "10 best list". They still enjoyed it. I'm sure there were many critics who like ROTS that didn't have it on their year end top 10 list....but, that doesn't mean that they didn't like it. Many of them just feel "uncomfortable" putting a prequel SW film in their "best" list because of what their fellow, critic buddies would say to them. Yes, it may be shallow and spineless of them, but, after all, they are "stuffed-shirt" movie critics...need I say more?

At the end of the day, the prequel films will be well thought of, IMHO, as time passes...time will settle the issue. No, they won't be as loved as the original trilogy, but the prequels will be seen as an integral part of the whole saga. In fact, ROTS is the "hub" of the "axis" that ties all the films together, IMHO.

Do not despair, my fellow SW fans. You have nothing to worry about. ROTS is, in fact, a great success, and is a film that I feel is one of the best that I have seen. And, that is all that is important....how did you like the film. Not, how did some limp-wristed movie critic like the film.

 

Tyrannus_the_Hut, thanks for the positive reviews....indeed, there are many critics (even many American critics ) who liked ROTS, and still do.

One of the movie critics in my old hometown newspaper had ROTS on her top ten list (at #10).

 

It's so funny because I'd consider the original Washington Post review to be the best one I've read. I actually sent it to people to convince them to go see the film. Then a few months later.... this. It's just amazing really, but not surprising.

 

Actually, I looked around on their web site yesterday and couldn't find anything bad about ROTS. Does anyone have a link?

 

One begs the question, how can you "love" something, then "hate" it several months later? Only very strange people, IMHO. Certainly, they are people without any hard-felt core values, to be easily swayed around so easily.

I don?t know that we are supposed to comment on the fans, but I will say that inevitably some people will change their opinion of a given movie over time; the factors contributing to this are varied and numerous, but sometimes it is as basic as an individual just having a change of opinion, and nothing more. Other instances are possibly more suspect, and might not withstand a great deal of scrutiny, but I would prefer not to discuss this matter in such broad terms. If you want to deal with a specific critic, then I would be happy to comment in depth.

The way I see it, who cares about what some wishy-washy critics think of ROTS? Who reads the Washington Post or the New York Times? I don't....I don't know anyone who does.

I know people who read both of those publications.

It did have an 82% fresh rating at RT....that's good. The average American movie-going public enjoyed it....$380 million's worth (#1 B.O. in 2005)....it sold well in DVD format (over 10 million copies - and counting, domestically).

The film was generally well-received; however, as SW is an easy target, it becomes fashionable to place the movie on the obligatory "Worst of the Year" lists.

That means the average American movie-goer liked the movie well enough to buy it on DVD.

That would be the logical deduction to make, but I have encountered some pretty outlandish notions that would contest that notion.

I really don't see what the all the angst is over this. In fact, ROTS may even win the People's Choice Award for favorite movie of the year. We will know that on January 10. If the contest is fair & objective, it should win, IMHO.

The People?s Choice Awards are a joke ? the nominees are almost completely arbitrary, and you are allowed to vote once a day, or somewhere thereabouts.

They still enjoyed it. I'm sure there were many critics who like ROTS that didn't have it on their year end top 10 list....but, that doesn't mean that they didn't like it. Many of them just feel "uncomfortable" putting a prequel SW film in their "best" list because of what their fellow, critic buddies would say to them. Yes, it may be shallow and spineless of them, but, after all, they are "stuffed-shirt" movie critics...need I say more?

Personally, I don?t consider "Revenge of the Sith" to be the year?s best picture, but that is not intended as any sort of a slight ? indeed, the film is tied for 11th place on my "year-end" list. I do have trouble with "Sith" being cited as one of the worst films of the year, particularly when 2005 has yielded such atrocious works as "The Dukes of Hazzard"; "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo"; "Dirty Love"; "Stealth"; "Fantastic Four"; "Elektra"; "Hide and Seek"; "The Longest Yard"; "Mindhunters"; "The Ring Two"; "XXX: State of the Union"; "Monster-in-Law"; "Constantine"; "Bewitched"; "Doom"; "Guess Who"; "A Sound of Thunder"; "Chaos"; "D.E.B.S."; "House of D"; "Jimminy Glick in La La Wood"; "Just Friends"; "Yours, Mine, and Ours"; "The Legend of Zorro"; "Son of the Mask"; "A Lot Like Love"; "The Man"; "The Perfect Man"; "Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous"; "The Pacifier"; "Underclassman"; and "A Dirty Shame" (although it was from 2004, it was so awesomely bad that an inclusion on 2005?s "worst of" list would not do justice to its mediocrity).

Tyrannus_the_Hut, thanks for the positive reviews....indeed, there are many critics (even many American critics) who liked ROTS, and still do.

No problem.

And with that, here are some more "Top 10" lists that include (or make mention of) ROTS:

Kevin Williamson (no, not the "Scream" scribe), Calgary Sun (Top 10 DVDs of 2005):

http://www.calgarysun.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=117914&x=articles&s=showbiz

7 Days (no. 5):

http://www.7days.ae/entertainment/the-best-movi

 

Darth_Sprocket put it well. There's a little too much angsting here...

 

Just be glad Lucas didn't have the Jedi fight the Mandalorians in the prequels as many had hoped. Lucas was showing restraint by allowing one new Fett instead of an entire army of them. Just think how much Boba would be deminished if there were thousands of Mandalorians running around. Lucas was very clever in appeasing the fans by giving us Jango and his cool Mandalorian armor but changing the rest of the army into Clonetroopers. We still get an army of Mandalorians but they don't have the cool suits diminishing the Fetts.

 

Well, not all media coverage is bad on Sith. Here's the start of an article on E! Online titled, Sith Happens in 2005:


Hollywood suffered an off year at the box office. George Lucas did not.


Lucas' Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge of the Sith, charting the death of Anakin Skywalker and the birth of Darth Vader, was 2005's top-grossing movie, tapping loyalists for $380.3 million, according to the box-office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations.


The film was the only $300 million-plus grosser in a year in which, Exhibitor Relations said, overall movie attendance fell about 7 percent, and ticket sales dipped about 5 percent.


Sith, ostensibly the final chapter in the Skywalker saga, seemed unaffected by the bad box-office vibes. It now stands seventh among the all-time box-office champs

Not bad...

 

Yes, very good. Even managed to praise ROTS without having digs at the other movies.

 

You call that praise do you. You are thirsting for anything positive by now. I am still trying to overcome EW's conceit that RotS clawed it's way to $380 Million soley on the backs of disappointed fans.

 

Well, I couldn't see anything too bad in that actual piece. But then, I've always been one to see the best in people.

 

Well it implies that the 380 came from "Loyalists" and not the general public.

As far as the "angsting" goes I'm sick and tired of 6 years of bashing.

 

To be honest, I didn't notice the "loyalist" comment when I read that first time around.

OK, having read that, it was a VERY strange comment and I admit that piece has gone down a LOT in my estimation. How anybody can seriously think that just a few "loyal" fans could get a movie to $380m is beyond me (which is what the piece seems to be implying?)

 

If a loyal fanbase were all that were required for a film to be successful, then Joss Whedon would presently be hard at work on that Serenity Sequel, and William Shatner would still be polishing his Captain Kirk sideburns.

 

Yep, and Oasis would still be this generations Beatles!

 

http://www.lardbiscuit.com/lard/lardyawards2005.html

i think i'm gonna give up on the software. has it stopped supporting links or something?

also wanting to say: yes, cryogenic came out with it first.

 

Hey... miss frared. I will PM you.

Anyway...

Check out this HORRIFIC media article. I can't decide if it's satirical or not:

http://www.lawrence.com/news/2005/may/17/starwars3/

The remarks are just appalling. Take these "highlights":

"At stake is the legacy of a universally celebrated story ? a legacy that could be retroactively tarnished if "Sith" sucks.

"I have quite a bit of anxiety about this last installment," says Aaron Whitebread, a 28-year-old cook and journalism student. "I've been such a fan that I notice all these little holes, and if they're not fixed in this movie it's going to kind of ruin the franchise for me."

Whitebread's anxieties are warranted given the lukewarm returns on "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999) and "Episode II: Attack of the Clones" (2002). While both movies contained enough special effects to make Pixar crap its collective pants, they also alienated many of the franchise's hardcore fans by pandering to children and the romance-craving date scene.

"Mostly everybody wants to know if it's better than the last two," Melin says. "The answer to that is 'yes' ... this one is better in almost every respect."

""I don't expect it to be the greatest movie I've ever seen," Scott says.

"It's going to be exactly what it is, which is a cool **** Star Wars-related action movie."

"That's the only credentials I think it needs to have.""

Riiiiight.

I wonder if Lucas is ever kept awake at night thinking of how many idiots like and misunderstand Star Wars? If there's one thing the Internet has taught me, then it's this: there are a lot of idiots out there.

 

Yahoo article about the people's choice awards and Sith winning Best Drama and Best Film.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20060111/en_celeb_eo/18133

My favorite part.

The People's Choice Awards are the only kudos handed out to the stars by average Joes and Janes with no Hollywood connections. Nominations are determined by a board of Entertainment Weekly editors and the People's Choice production team and then posted online for public voting at pcavote.com.

Up yours EW. Up yours.