PT The Blockbuster Double Standard

I don't really care which scene came first, in terms of assembly lines. The AOTC thing was a late addition, and was actually concieved, shot and cut within a few hours, making it a rather impressive bit of high-concept impromptu filmmaking. Besides, Lucas uses the geography of a factory floor in a much more creative way than Spielberg did-- basically, Tom Cruise fights Colin Farrel and swings on some machinery, that's it. It's actually pretty rote, aside from the stupid "building a car around a person" stinger (stupid because, he really should've been killed).

The "Minority Report" product placements make sense, as a picture of this omnipresent commercial dystopia. Can't make the same excuse for "Star Trek".

 

That is inherently absurd. Assignment of moral equvalency is exactly what I alleged, so there's no point in beginning a confirmation of such equivalency with a "No". Saruman's troops invaded Rohan for the purpose of conquest and killed innocent people; Eomer's riders intercepted an orc warband in Rohan that had already attacked the Fellowship at Parth Galen, killing Boromir, and were in the process of returning to their own territory with captives in tow. At no point did Eomer invade someone else's country or murder the innocent. If you can't see the difference between these things, I don't know what to tell you, but this situation is the same in the books, so it doesn't serve as some kind of criticism of Jackson.

This also happened in the book.

There are several problems with the above. First, the attempted analogy of the orcs being replaced by Iraqi soldiers in Iraq doesn't fit the situation. Rohan is not the orcs' home country. Also, I'd ask you to realize that the orcs in Middle-earth are evil by nature, as part of the fictional universe created by the writer. They weren't on a nature hike. A country's defenders slaughtering marauding enemies within their borders, especially enemies of this nature who are beholden to darkness, seems justified to me. You might as well argue that the Jedi have no right to kill the Sith. And again, this so-called "awfulness" is not something created by the films or Jackson. The films are largely true to the books.

Yes, we have cars and other vehicles for that purpose. That doesn't mean he can be in two places at once. He's not Multiple Man.

Full-facial beatings of the type shown are easily survivable, as are many vehicular accidents. As for the explosion, he was apparently shielded by the filing cabinet.

 

I'm going to agree with Cryo that Nolan's Joker moves about Gotham and unhatches his various schemes without very much trouble, when you get right down to it, given all the free reign that a living plot-device affords. A big part of his ability to wage his war so effectively is his army of henchmen, and I'm not quite sure why they're so willing to follow him, as he demonstrates time and again that he's perfectly willing to sacrifice any of them, backstab and betray in the course of any given job (the first scene sets that up perfectly). Is it simply because he goes out of his way to select former patients of Arkham, and depends on their mental instability to make them oblivious from the danger they're in? If so, why doesn't their mental instability ever unhinge his plans? All of those complicated cons of his more or less depend on each and every aspect working perfectly-- one henchman screws up, and the whole thing falls apart like a Rube Goldberg contraption.

By the way, for all the criticisms that Lucas gets with acting and writing that Nolan recieves in the form of hyperbolic praise, there's one thing the former is able to do that continues to escape the latter-- how to shoot a damn fight scene.

 

That has nothing to do with the orcs. The orcs are a race unto themselves and cannot be "cured". Furthermore, they are not Nazgul, wraiths, hobbits stabbed with Morgul-blades, or denizens of the netherworld.

That is not in any way indicative of anything.

Just like the ones in the books.

But that wasn't the original claim made by another poster - that he could be in two places at once. He clearly moves around and does a lot of things, but this is not especially dubious from a plot standpoint.

Yes, he is, inconceivable though that may be.

Sam has very good reasons for his distrust. Let's not forget that he heard Gollum plotting against them, and that they were attacked by Gollum in the first place, and that Gollum's nefarious activities and his obsession with the Ring are generally well-known, and that the Baggins family already has a history with Gollum. What kind of moral lesson is taught when the one who is proven right is still judged to have been wrong?

 

If I can just drop in here to address an existing line of discussion (JFP, I'll get to your comments in a bit)...

Fenn, I think you're a little confused here. I am not talking so much about Theoden's objection to the invasion of his country, because that's not really what he's talking about (in the moment I am focusing on). Nor am I talking about Eomer killing the Orcs, because that, in and of itself, isn't where Theoden's hypocrisy lies (again, in the moment I am focusing on). Rather, Theoden complains to Saruman about the bodies of dead soldiers being "hewn", continuing with, "even as they lay dead against the gates of the Hornburg". In other words, he's talking about desecration. But Eomer desecrated the bodies of the Orcs by having his men pile their bodies in a heap and burn them. In addition, someone from Eomer's company cut off an Orc's head and set it on a spike next to the burning heap. So what right has Theoden to complain about soldiers' bodies being "hewn" after his men had already done the same thing to the Orcs? If anything, their evil actions would have stoked enmity and encouraged retaliation from the Orcs. Theoden is apparently blind to this and goes into a hypocritically-righteous rant without ever acknowledging *any* wrong-doing -- *ever* -- by his own men. That's crusader mentality in just about its purest form.

Right, but... this goes beyond Argumentum Ad Automobilia. I appreciate that TDK is not a film about grand theft auto or the Joker's difficulties with securing wheeled transport. What I am saying -- and what I think, largely, Natalie was/is saying -- is that the Joker has an easy time getting around the city, even getting into buildings and rooms that might otherwise present a problem, like the mobster's kitchen, or Dent's hospital room. He can basically go wherever the narrative needs him to go. And despite being a wanted terrorist who's already evaded capture once (and is now wanted even more -- since blowing up cop houses in the middle of effecting your own rescue tends to make cops and other law agencies hate you more, not less), he can easily glide around the city, making his way to warehouses, hospitals and skyscrapers with virtually no problem. Indeed, NO PROBLEM! Until, of course, the plot requires Batman and he to have another confrontation.

I wrote... "without incident". I didn't imply any one of those things would necessarily *kill* him; but the fact is that he's not even *injured* by any of those events. And when you say

 

Yes, he remains undamaged by explosions when he is out of range - not exactly a super power.

Except for the fact that these so-called "crusaders" have no obvious religious motive, are not engaged in conquest, and are only defending their home country against invasion. So, no, not so much.

No, he's not just talking about desecration. He explicitly mentions the children murdered in the Westfold. He's talking about invasion and genocide. Are you really suggesting that he only cares about the desecration of already-dead bodies, and isn't bothered by the fact that his country was invaded and his villagers were killed? In your zeal to convict Theoden for hypocrisy on the topic of desecration, how have you managed to ignore the fact that Saruman tried to wipe out Rohan?

This is basically RLM in reverse. Attacking anything that's popular won't erase the problems of the PT, because some things are popular for good reason. This motive is made especially clear in the constant drive to fabricate division between Tolkien and Jackson. Because Tolkien's books are considered to be above reproach ( except in terms of political correctness ), it becomes necessary to attack Jackson's films specifically, regardless of their consistency with the source material, in an attempt to make LOTR fans look as misguided as PT apologists.

 

Hence the Double Standard. If the PT can take these kinds of nitpicks, the same should be true of LOTR, or any other big franchise.

Okay, I gotta take this. I've tried to read Tolkien on a number of occasions. For all the problems I have with his mythology, I find it interesting. What gets in the way for me is his language. Call LOTR what you will in terms of being a cornerstone for the fantasy genre, but in terms of literature, it isn't really much to write home about. His prose is so dense and dry, it's like reading a historical text-book. There's none of the poetic flourish or wit that you find in C.S. Lewis, Phillip Pullman, or Frank Herbert, to name a few. So not every facet of Tolkein's books are beyond reproach-- frankly, I just don't think they're very well written, period.

Anyway, time for another observation before this goes off the rails. One thing I've always found rather odd is how people have criticized the PT for having too much exposition between action-scenes, while just about all the other big sci-fi/fantasy series of the past decade have been truly overburdened with it (LOTR especially, but stuff like Nolan's movies, "Tron Legacy", "Avatar"). By contrast, Lucas keeps things in the present tense throughout all of his Prequels, and actually features very little in the way of actual sit-down explanations of backstory or in-the-moment plotting. Frankly, the films could probably do to have a little more of it-- wouldn't it have been fun to actually hear about the Sith "Rule of Two" or their dominion over the galaxy instead of having to read between the lines?

 

So, in other words, it's "I know you are but what am I"... but thanks for confirming it. You seem to miss the point. Nonsensical and inaccurate RLM-style "nitpicking" of the PT is invalid. Retaliatory nonsensical and inaccurate RLM-style "nitpicking" of the Nolanverse or LOTR is similarly invalid. That's not a double standard. It is incorrect to blindly assume that "any other big franchise" must necessarily be as questionable as the PT.

I find that statement difficult to take seriously.

If only they could see how unjust it is to rescue Minas Tirith from its ( apparently virtuous and blameless ) attackers. A theme seems to be emerging: fighting back against an attacker is morally wrong ( but only when Jackson puts it on screen, not when Tolkien writes it ).

"Open war is upon you, whether you wish it or not." This war wasn't started by the "good guys".

So what? Are we now holding Tolkien and Jackson accountable for the behavior of YouTube commenters?

Fantasy might not be the genre for you.

 

Part 1

This is getting messy -- and tiresome.

Fenn, would you stop editing new comments into your posts for once and let me respond fairly and squarely?

You may not intend to get the better of me in that manner, but it's a little irksome. I will now have to go back over your earlier post and comment on those extra bits 'n' pieces you added. I really want to get off this whole Theoden/Eomer thing (and, for that matter, LOTR)...

Fair enough. But that only makes Jackson a priest of Tolkien's. He throws in a mixture of trumped-up heresies while generally retaining details without irony or commentary. There's something very inelegant about that. Auteurs like Kubrick and Tarantino may have worked from books, but they were and are always willing to change and subvert things, expressing their own world-views; and not necessarily agreeing with the authors on matters of aesthetics, ethics or morality. It seems, to me, that Jackson possesses neither the courage, nor the perspicacity, to really question or reinterpret ugly things; or carry details through but shade them with more nuanced, modern meanings.

That's the whole point: the Jedi have no right to *kill* the Sith... to kill anyone. And I also flipped my analogy ("better yet") to align with the situation in Iraq, but you ignored that. Saying the Orcs are all "evil by nature" is EXACTLY the kind of fundamentalist position crusading people take, regardless of whether organized religion -- or even just Christian religion ("crusade" = "crux" = Latin for "cross") -- is involved or not. And even when nature may apparently deign something to be a certain way, the defining trait of literature -- particularly Science-Fiction literature (Star Wars' combining of fantasy with Sci-Fi may be one reason I prefer it) -- is its ability to call our minds to the potential to transcend nature; and even to recognize that nature is often brutal and requires transcending as a basic matter of enhanced survival: i.e., greater survival with reduced suffering. Arguing from what an author apparently sets in place may have a certain semantic salience, but it does nothing at all for morality itself. This is where Bible fundamentalists -- and various other extremists -- go wrong. In their minds, the two are conflated; irreducibly and immutably so.

And onto your next post, now...

The Joker is not real

 

Part 2

Okay, so we're STILL on this? There is no attempt at reasoning with the Orcs. No soul-searching, no dissent, no-one despairing that they're going to "have to" kill every last invading Orc (either by their own hand, trampling them under horse or driving them into an angry forest (!!)). Quite simply, I find it offensive and egregious. "Defence" and defending one's "home" -- indeed, what one's "home" actually is -- also have many meanings. The whole point of Star Wars is that it is stressing this. Everyone should read the MSTRMND article on Episode IV -- originally just called "Star Wars", of course -- to peel back the curtain and get some sense of what Lucas has actually done. Human beings are naturally territorial and aggressive. We are a primate species. Art should be mocking and despairing of this; not embracing it with open arms. The Rohan people have a prodigiously big stretch of land (relative to the amount of people we see and are implied to live there). And when people need land -- good, fertile land (who would want to live in Mordor their whole life?) -- it's only right that governments and people communicate and reach agreements. In LOTR, the opposing forces are painted as blacker-than-black, and the white folk murder them en masse, according to warrior codes and orders from authority (which they obey without question: "Your people will follow you to whatever end" -- and there is never any evidence offered to the contrary). I see my "Pale Blue Dot" link went unheeded. More people should watch it.

Yes... I KNOW all that. I specifically indicated I was focusing on a particular objection Theoden mounts. How, in your zeal, have you managed to overlook the fact that Theoden's own forces behaved with extreme violence and ugliness to the Orcs, rather than trying to stop or subdue them more humanely? Theoden issues a particular complaint he has no right to make. He is zealous and blood-thirsty -- and NO-ONE objects to anything he says.

Why says anyone is looking to "erase" problems? Problems are largely subjective and reside in the eye of the beholder. People like JF

 

I can't really speak for Cryo, but I think the sentiment is more like "it takes one to know one," or something along those lines. My point is that the nitpicking that people take for granted as valid for the PT is routinely dismissed for other franchises, even when it can be applied just as easily. Beyond that, what Cryo's also getting at is a fundamental philosophical examination of the LOTR and Nolanverse values, and while that my be a topic better suited for another thread, I'm more than willing to listen to those points here, considering how much crap Lucas has taken for the values at play in SW and the Prequels especially.

Obviously, I'm not a LOTR fan, but I do enjoy the Nolan Batman films, even when I find fault with them.

And I find it difficult to take it seriously that people actually enjoy Tolkien's language, but who am I to call them liars? Granted, I've been able to sit through books by guys whose command of language could be grating, or at the very least banal. Ever read a Phillip K. Dick book? His ideas are great, but his prose can go way off the map in terms of discipline. Or one of the original Ian Flemming Bond books? Fun, but like Tolkien, very dry, which is something I can deal with when reading about the intricacies of 20th century espionage, but not so much elves and dwarves, and whatnot.

Reading's a very subjective thing, and Tolkien just doesn't even approach my tastes, so hearing about people talk about him as though he's the greatest writer of the 20th century (as they are sometimes wont to do) always strikes me as a little silly.

 

I'm just going to go back to dealing with JFP and like-minded people in a minute, because this is getting ridiculous now...

I would actually say that our criticisms of those non-PT films have generally had more validity, thus far, than a lot of the RLM criticisms. RLM/Stoklasa even blasts things like the scene of Obi-Wan bad-mouthing Anakin to Qui-Gon in Qui-Gon's presence, when it's obvious Lucas designed the scene so Anakin would hear (the RLM video segment strongly implies it's an out-and-out "mistake"). I believe the word you're actually searching for is "subjectivity". To a large degree, that's what this boils down to. However, I'm not trying to mislead or quibble small details. I'm trying to deal with these films' attitudes to violence and their moral frameworks. I'm sure JFP would say something similar. RLM does little of either. He's more concerned with making sarcastic bashes of things by willfully mixing up basic details that -- in their non-edited, non-skewered form -- aren't even issues to begin with. He's a satirist and an obscurantist. I might throw in a little of the former, but I'm actively trying to avoid the latter. Maybe I'm failing.

What you've just said is highly bigoted and idiotic. Newsflash: PEOPLE'S TASTES DIFFER.

I really think it's *you* with a problem or two here.

"Open war is upon you, whether you wish it or not." This war wasn't started by the "good guys".[/quote]

Yeah... The strawman fallacy again. Moral people seek to end or otherwise avoid wars. They don't plummet straight into them, no matter how inevitable them may seem (or more accurately: some may try and convince them of). This is where I consider the underlying attitudes of the artists behind the middle installments of the PT and LOTR to be poles apart.

Yet another strawman. Can you even THINK beyond your first impulse? Of course, not! What I was trying to imply is that the LOTR films seem to push a lot of buttons where the idea of killing is

 

Let's keep this on topic, gentlemen. The point is to establish and discuss the double-standards of criticism between the PT and other blockbusters, and with LOTR, I think that's been done quite well, and enough for the time being. Let's move on, lest the discussion turn into a shark standing still.

Cryo, I checked out the Mstrmnd article on TPM, and it's fascinating, if only an overture to a longer work. The observation of the 2.35:1 viewscreen on the Jedi transport within the 2.35:1 frame of the film is a nice one (it also mirrors Vader's 2.35:1 screen from ESB, choking Ozzel in teleconference). Any idea when this was begun, and whether it's going to be continued?

 

It's a nice interpretation. But his one for Episode IV is the real deal. If you really want to get a handle on the whole film series' title, that's the one to go for. The TPM analysis was begun some time ago; it was in a magazine scan on the site first (which was almost impossible to read), then got turned into HTML. I really have no idea if and when the analysis will be continued. The author of those pieces, Kevin McLeod, said there's a book in the works, but that was over a year ago -- and still nothing. It's looking like whatever's there now might be all we ever get. That would be a shame, but there's enough to chew on for some time yet. It's simply THAT good; in my opinion.

 

Odious little twerp, wasn't he? I haven't had such a visceral reaction to a lead character since my last viewing of Altman's M*A*S*H.

 

You mean Hawkeye? I guess Sutherland never really won people over as much as Alda. I like his whistle, though. I agree on Pine's bratty Kirk. Insufferable clown, made all the worse by the fact that you're supposed to like him. You can chance unsavory stuff in a character whose sympathy is meant to be a little dodgy, like the Once and Future Vader. I'm reminded of that really odd movie "Max", where John Cusack plays a Jewish art dealer in Weimar Berlin who runs into a certain art-school reject. "C'mon, Hitler. I'll buy you a lemonade".

 

Exactly. People complained Anakin is not very likable in AOTC, and it does hurt the romance somewhat (among other things), but at least he's not supposed to be the charming rogue. I was so happy when Kirk was jettisoned from the ship (although it was really incongruous). But then they gave him the ship... for what? Ask anyone in the military, would they want to have Pine's Kirk as their commanding officer?

It's interesting that Abrams' Star Trek seems to be almost as dividing in the trekkie fandom as the prequels are for SW fans. People either love it or hate it.

 

It's got any number of gross flaws; in my opinion. But as far as the Kirk thing goes: intellectually, I find him deplorable; watching Chris Pine try and make something of him...? Not so bad. What I think Abrams tried to do was nuance the over-bearing nature of Kirk in spots, like making him the unfortunate victim of a vaccine, or when he meets Nimoy-Spock, who he is pretty deferential towards and seems to strike a rapport with (displacing some of his animosity -- well, kinda -- to the Quinto-Spock character). But there's still waaaaaay too much to look past; in my view. One of the most bracing examples is actually in a cut scene (that, given its gloss, presumably almost made it in). Abrams and his writers seem to find the "It's hard to tell 'em apart when they all look the same!" racist joke funny enough to make Kirk -- this would-be captain of the Federation's flagship -- the butt of, when he mistakes another crewmember for an alien chick he dallied with, and who was actually killed aboard one of the other starships that was shredded to pieces by Nero earlier on. Not only that, but when Kirk is making his apology to who he thinks is this other person he took advantage of, he actually says, "I know it looks like I was using you... or whatever." Or whatever??? This really demonstrates above all else that he doesn't have the emotional intelligence for command. Not yet, maybe not ever. But sure enough, on top of everything else he either does wrong, does really wrong, or doesn't do at all, he gets to be Captain of the Enterprise, with bells on.

 

Yeah, I've resigned myself to the fact thqt the TNG era that I grew up enjoying is pretty much gone as far as the franchise goes. Maybe we'll see some crossover with the timeline changed, like Kirk taking on the Borg (and being assimilated, maybe, ala Locutus-- seeing Sykar/Spock recite Riker's season closing word would be cool), but from now on it's all downhill. Funny, that people tend to be positive to wild, campy reinterpretations of a franchise as long as it's from somebody new, but not the original creator (Lucas, Mann's "Miami Vice"). Stuff like the Abrams "Trek" feels like it has more in common with parody movies of old TV shows like "The Brady Bunch" or "Starsky and Hutch".

A key exception are the new "Rebuild of Evangelion" films, where original anime creator Hideaki Anno has remade, revamped and in some cases completely redone the mythology of his series for new theatrical "Special Editions", and recieved mostly acclaim from the fans (there's been the opposite, too, but Anno has always prompted, shall we say, extreme reactions). Both there and in the original show, I think he actually perfected the art of creating the Anakin-like ambiguously sympathetic protagonist in Shinji Ikari, a kid so weak willed and prone to depression he makes Holden Caulfield looks like one of the Hardy Boys by comparison. Anybody else out there know what I'm talking about?

 

Kinda like making Jar Jar the general. Which everyone was thought was silly - and it was, intentionally so.

 

Which is terribly unfortunate, because the movies is loads better than the series ever could hope to be.

Like change them HOW much? Because I love Evangelion. Easily my favorites anime. I have never been a huge fan of the ending of the series (I like happy endings where everyone lives, okay?). I purchased the Angelic Days manga because it was a more light, happy alternate universe. But, I haven't seen pretty much anything outside the series, the Angelic Days manga, and End of Evangelion. I've heard of the remakes and stuff, but I've been wary of seeing them for a variety of reasons (okay, there's really only one reason: sheer laziness).

 

Evangelion 1.11 is mostly a straight retread of episodes 1 through six, with Operation Yashima as the climax. There's some key differences that make it a worthy way to start the series, reacquaint yourself of the characters and everything, but for the most part it's the same, just told at a much bigger, theatrical scale. Evangelion 2.22 is where things really get interesting, as Anno changes things almost exactly from the start, with Asuka's arrival. You'll recognize a handful of moments, but they're all told in different ways. I hesitate to say if it's "happier" or not, or where things will go in the next two movies, but it's definitely gotten very interesting.

The General Jar-Jar/Captain "Kirk" stuff is an interesting example of the double standard, Natalie. I'd also say that there seems to be a hell of a lot of Anakin surging through Pine's portrayal of James T. Kirk, but instead of being a guy who's kinda creepy for obsessing over one girl his whole life, he's creepy for being a drunken womanizer. One is a sexual-harassment suit waiting to happen, the other a borderline stalker. Spade's a spade.

 

Another minor point, but why does Arwen get a pass in ROTK while Padme is constantly lambasted for "losing the will live"? I'm not trying to focus on Lord of the Rings specifically, but I haven't heard nearly as much dissatistfaction about Arwen suddenly beginning to die in the middle of the third Lord of the Rings movie. Why is her life suddenly "tied to the fate of the Ring"? Arguably, Padme experiences significantly more trauma in ROTS (Palpatine's reveal as the Sith/Emperor, the destruction of the Republic she's worked to build, her husband's betrayal, etc.) yet she's derided as weak while Arwen is not, or not to the same extent, at the very least.

 

Ah, c'mon, JFP! What's not to love?

[image=http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xihd/trekxihd0547.jpg]

I think the consternation arises more from the fact that Padme is an expectant mother who, indeed, goes into labour, delivers her babies, then checks out. By way of contrast, what animates Arwen -- causes her to snap out of her sorrow and literally turn her horse around, galloping back to Rivendell -- is her vision of Aragorn lifting up a child: their son. The child itself, as part of a potential future, represents hope, and this hope inspires Arwen, giving her the strength to storm up the steps and angrily challenge her father's haughty pessimism. But while Luke and Leia may even be a "new hope" quite explicitly, they are not enough to reverse Padme's melancholia, and away she goes. That said, you're correct to say that Padme experiences "significantly more trauma", and it does seem rather heartless for people to deride her given the grave outcomes that hit her all at once, and, indeed, this longer sense of anguish and resignation that define her political and personal incarnations across the PT.

 

True, but the reason of Arwen's decline seems more contrived, to me, given that she suddenly finds this strength, stemming from a vision of a brighter future, and yet still begins to fade away. Padme, by contrast, has spent months dreaming of a happy future -- a baby on Naboo, with a room by the gardens, only to have it ripped away from her when she is at her lowest, both physically and mentally. Even if Anakin had come back to her, that hope for a whole family is gone as her husband would be incarcerated even if the Republic was somehow able to resuscitate itself (which she knows it won't). And her continuing to live, when she's been stripped of all power, does nothing but to put her children in danger of being pursued by their father. Padme had a dream of happiness but unfolding events made it impossible, and her death was, in part, caused by that. Arwen on the other hand despaired at having a joyful life with Aragorn, but was shown a glimmer of hope, the possibility of such a future, and yet she begins to die as well, despite her son and husband's smiling faces being in her mind's eye.

Padme can see nothing but darkness ahead. Arwen has the light at the end of the tunnel.