PT Rebuttal: RLM's Attack of the Clones Review

I don't know if it's an exclusively American thing, but I agree with this point of view. A lot of the most vocal people on the internet are way too emotionally involved in Star Wars and can't just let go.

The movies were very important to them, they'll say. Fair enough. One of my favorite movie theater experiences was 2002's Spider-Man. I was exactly the same age as Peter was in that movie, so I really identified with the coming of age aspects such as him moving into the city and learning to be a responsible man. Spider-Man basically defined a lot of my personal standards for superhero and fantasy action movies. I followed the build-up to Spider-Man 2 very closely, and was very pleased with the way that the Harry Osborn story arc was developing.

I was worried about the multiple villains in Spider-Man 3, and was sorely disappointed when I saw the movie and had all of my worst fears confirmed. That night in 2007, I posted a long, negative review on one of the forums I was on. But that was it. I personally gave the movie a 5/10 rating for not doing anything for me. I didn't play it up as the "worst movie ever" or claim that it had somehow violated my childhood (which did include the 90s Spidey cartoon). It wasn't, because it still did a lot that was right and which I could give credit for. Aside from maybe one or two forum posts in the 5 years since then, I haven't really talked about it. I'm not angry about that water under the bridge either, and I've even considered watching the entire trilogy over again. Even if I don't, I'll always have parts 1 & 2 to enjoy.

Why do some people have to be so much more dramatic about Star Wars?

 

very good post JimRaynor

 

I think it holds the most cultural significance in the States. That might include other Western Countries and Japan, I suppose. I've seen some Gen-Xers calling Star Wars "our Vietnam war" which is, honestly, seems totally ridiculous to me.

Your response to Spiderman trilogy was similar to the way I felt about the LOTR trilogy. I'm a big fan of Tolkien's work and really looked forward to the movies. New Zealand as a shooting location and not your typical Hollywood director seemed like a good match to me. I ended up loving most of Fellowship despite some significant changes. I thought they did a good job at capturing the spirit of the books, if not the letter. Unfortunately, The Two Towers and The Return of the Kind were a complete letdown. Most of the characters were diminished or looked stupid and the plot changes didn't make any sense.

I vented my frustration on the tolkien/fantasy forums I posted at the time, argued for a little while and then moved on. I might mention my disappointment with Peter Jackson's flaws as a writer and director if he's mentioned but I don't go out of my way about it.

The only reason I'm going to see the Hobbit because it's a company event and it's still better than sit at work. Slightly

I think one of the reasons is the passage of time. A lot of folks were disappointed with ROTJ (many still are) but they seemed to have reconciled with it over time. The prequels came out after 16 years of cultural nostalgia and unparalleled hype. I think if TPM had been released in 1986, given the same plot, it would've been received better (especially since the Internet was still in its infancy at the time).

 

I agree, but they would have been received better because, without the crutch of CGI for Lucas to over-rely on, they would simply have been better movies.

 

There probably wouldn't have been Jar-Jar as we know it... but then again, ewoks were not CGI. Not to mention stilted dialogue and hammy acting.

 

Applying your own reaction to something & holding it up to say "I did this, why didn't they?" is never a useful endeavor.

To answer your question, or attempt to, Star Wars has a bigger place in more people's hearts. Some people still haven't 'forgiven' Yoko Ono, either.

 

Sorry, but if the best argument you have in defense of the prequels is basically: "Well, they're only supposed to be stupid kids' movies anyway! Don't take them so seriously!", well, that's pretty much waving the white flag right there.

 

It's not a "defense" it's a statement

 

"Americans take Star Wars way too seriously" is a statement. "At the end of the day, they're just kids movies" is a defense.

 

Maybe, but then again, Lucas's original intention was to make movies for kids.

 

Are you sure about that? It seems more like there is some confusion about the difference between movies for children, and childish movies.

 

The line between "childish" and "for children" is somewhat blurry. I certainly think they went too far with Jar-Jar, ewoks and some other stuff. However, I've known people who think all Star Wars are childish, not just the prequels.

 

That's a good point, I've encountered that as well, though not with "Wars" or "Empire".

 

I said it before; star wars is a movie for kids, and the kid in you.

One of the many wonderful things about Star Wars is that it's a movie that is for every age and generation. Even if it is a kids movie.

I know we are all doing a pretty good job at it so far, but remember, we are defending our opinions, so we criticize the movies, not each other.
Just a friendly reminder.

 

Why is it "never" useful to make that point? I'm happy that I won't be stewing over Spider-Man 3 in the year 2020. If that year looks ridiculous, that's my point. It will "just" be 13 years after SM3 came out. You point out Yoko Ono, as if having such feelings about her are beyond question as well. I would ask why most people can go through life without still being angry (or even caring) about what she did or supposedly did four decades ago.

I don't want to discourage the simple act of criticism. Open, honest communication needs to accept both positive and negative reactions. What I question is the intense need of some people to persist in anger and hatred after more than a decade. The need to see some old movie as an injustice that had been committed against them rather than what it actually was: a movie they didn't like. The way some people continually put in the effort to play some movies up as the most horrible things ever, applying standards that they would never apply to other films. Or the way they have to caricaturize Lucas as some kind of villain, scumbag, creep, etc. for not doing what they wanted, when other filmmakers don't make a habit of consulting their fans either.

Lest we all forget, movies are entertainment. They're supposed to be enjoyable. If someone's status as a fan is all about being angry and bitter, then what's the point? He or she can choose not to like the movies and criticize. But it's not good for people to obsess, exaggerate, polarize things into extremes, and continually see themselves as victims. Being a fan should be a source of enjoyment.

 

Next part: coming tomorrow.

 

Because you're holding other people up to a standard or way of thinking that you subscribe to, but they may not. Each person will have their own reasons for their own behavior, but you saying "why are they doing this if I don't do it?" doesn't fly. Just because you feel there's a time limit on criticism in order for it to be acceptable doesn't make it so. It's akin to someone asking "why would you care about Spiderman in the first place? I don't.". You can't use your own opinion to set the bar for everyone else.

 

Well, I submit that what each of us are suggesting he's addressing is the same thing: a time limit for someone's feelings to be "acceptable". It doesn't really matter what it is they are happy or upset about. That's their own prerogative.

Your last sentence is precisely my point.

 

Well, sure, but I'm learning (stubbornly so, sadly) that it's not up to me or anyone else to decide what's over the top for how someone feels & how they choose to express it. Frankly, I think the anger shown here about RLM is over the top, but people are entitled to feel what they feel & are free to say what they want to say.

 

My problem with Stoklasa isn't his implied sexism but the ( proven, by a poster in this thread ) intellectual bankruptcy of most of his supposed points against the films. As a hypothetical, if his critique of the films had had more actual substance, he could still have sold it in the same sleazy package - but that's not what we got.