PT The Blockbuster Double Standard

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Jedi_Ford_Prefect, Jul 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Bazinga'd, heels1785
  1. Adali-Kiri Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2000
    star 4
    Interesting thread! =D=

    I completely agree. I've always preferred Lucas' more sober approach to scenes like Shmi's death, Shmi's funeral, Anakin's immolation, etc. I re-watched The Fellowship Of The Ring and The Two Towers last week on BD, and I had to stop before getting into The Return Of The King. Because I was exhausted, both by the films' length and by Jackson's hyperbolic audiovision. There's so little room to breath and let scenes sink in. So many teary-eyed close-ups in slo-mo. And way too much music.

    Jackson made better LOTR movies than I thought possible at the time, but I always preferred Lucas' style. And in terms of the modern blockbuster, Lucas' style is decidedly old school. Even in the PT there is a clear voice coming through from back in the 1960s and 70s, a time before the blockbuster that Lucas ironically co-invented. That blockbuster is now a spectacle that Lucas' prequels didn't seem overly interested in matching, which I respect, and which might serve the saga well in the long term.
  2. Cryogenic Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    Just going to quote from one of your recent posts in here, JFP; but not your most recent. Hopefully, this will suffice in covering most of the same ground...

    I think some of the broadest turns of scenery-chewing -- from a certain POV, of course -- come from Jar Jar in TPM and Palpatine/Sidious in ROTS. AOTC is sort of the odd one out; it has an enervating start with the chase sequence, then it kinda winds down into this sombre Sci-Fi-romance flick, which is briefly punctuated by lively CG characters like Dex and Watto, and later, Yoda, in his climatic showdown with an old padawan (and maybe Threepio should be name-dropped for his antics on the battlefield, too). It's replete with its own kind of esoteric humour/irony -- "slapstick and sadism", as one TFN-er once put it -- and seems to go to extremes on purpose, like, say, Hayden Christensen's moody turn as Anakin, or, for that matter, Natalie Portman's stoic, wispy rendering of Padme. This can make it more challenging (all its shifting -- indeed, clashing -- tones), and I think, a little harder to intrinsically like than the bright adventure of TPM or the epic tragedy of ROTS. Harder to like and classify. But it also gives it its own look and feel. Like all the SW movies, depending on how you look at it, it's a chapter unto itself.

  3. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    The long window in Palpatine's office is one of several in the film (the long, horizontal entrance to the Invisible Hand's landing bay, with its blue-tinted shields, is another), and the latest in Lucas' CinemaScope sized and windows, constantly creating frames within the 2.35:1 frame. When Mace and Palpatine duel, it's effectively letterboxing an already letterboxed fight. The bit on Polis Massa reminds me of similar moments as Obi-Wan looks out onto the assembly line of clones on Kamino, another medicial/scientific facility.

  4. Nordom Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2004
    star 4
    And in the OT the rebels quite often cheer or smile when imperial forces are destroyed.
    The empire is shown as nothing but evil, the opening crawl even says this "The EVIL Galatic Empire" They do genocide on a massive scale, kill and torture. And Palpatine is shown as the typical EVIL Warlock, complete with an evil cackle. He is totally and irredeemably evil and his death ends the empire and everyone is happy and free.
    So both LotR and the OT have a rather black and white view, the empire is evil, the rebels are good. Also both stories have the main good guy show compassion to an evil character and that compassion does help to destroy the evil. In neither do the good guys directly end the evil. Both stories also does have something to say about the issue of forgiveness and redemption and that evil people might not always have been so. Even Sauron is said to not have been evil from the start.

    As for Genocide, was it Genocide when the rebels blew up the DS or the DS2? Was it Genocide when they destroyed the SSD? Far more people were killed in those events than anything in LotR.
    Also the trees are described as dangerous and dark/evil. Treebeard warns the Hobbits that the trees would try to harm them even though they have done nothing. So the trees are not exactly nice people. The books has other examples of evil and dangerous trees.

    What is your argument, that Theoden has no reason to be angry at Saruman?
    What did Saruman do?
    1) He attacked Rohan without warning or provocation.
    2) He had his soldiers burn and kill all in their path, men, women, children. It was not a conquest, it was total slaughter.
    3) He was responsible for the death of Theodens own son.
    4) By some magic Saruman had controlled/possessed Theoden and made him weak and feeble so that Rohan would fall quicker.
    5) Saruman sent a big army to slaughter every last, man, woman and child at Helms Deep.

    Lest you forget, Theoden is the King and he is responsible for all his people. So their deaths weigh on his mind. Theoden has plenty of reason to be cross with Saruman and he does threaten but does not carry out his threat. He does however forgive Grima, who had a big part in what happened to Rohan and says that he no longer need to follow Saruman.
    So Theoden does know how to forgive. And when Saruman dies there is no cheering or glee on their faces, some look quite disturbed.
    In the book Frodo has Saruman at his mercy and he does not seek revenge, he lets him go but then Grima kills Saruman and the other hobbits kill Grima before Frodo can stop them. And Sarumans death is viewed as something quite tragic and sad.

    Well we have the prophecy that seem to say that ALL Sith must die in order for the Force to be balanced. If this prophecy comes from the Force then the Jedi have in a way orders from ?God? to hunt down and destroy all Siths. Then they are given this "divinely created" chosen one who is a Sith killer, his role in life is to wipe out the Sith, which he does. So if anyone was on a crusade it was the Jedi.
    The heroes in LotR never had some goal to kill all orcs, they wanted to stop Sauron because they knew that if he was not stopped, he could conquer and enslave them. And how do the heroes in LotR know what Sauron would do? Well he tried it before, when he m
  5. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Yes, but at least in the OT you do have characters who redeem themselves, turn from evil to good. As for what you're talking about with forgiveness and Sauron not always being evil in LOTR-- perhaps that's how it is in Tolkien, but in Jackson's films, we don't get that at all. The emobodiment of "Evil" from Time Bandits has more nuance than the films' Giant Red Eye.

    As for the opening crawls announcing the "Evil Empire"-- I always take those with a grain of pulpy salt. You can take them at face value, or as a part of the pastiche-satire of SW. Anyway, I think we're encouraged to sympathize with the Imperial officers more than we are, say the Orcs or Men of the East in the films. Hell, I always get a little sad when Needa bites it. And if I remember correctly, when DS2 is blowing up, don't we see various Stormtroopers and Imperials rushing to escape vehicles together, and even helping wounded comrades? They may be on the wrong side, but they're human (or perhaps I should say "sentient") beings.

    Jingoism is still jingoism, even if there's something that it arises from, some fresh wound that people capitalize and take advantage of. It's not hard to see the Rohan cry to war as that, though granted, the self-defense angle is there. As for Saruman's death-- in the film, it's treated as little more than an afterthought, a joke. One of the things Jackson didn't get right in the adaptation, you could say.

  6. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Is he now?

    [image=http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IZNmXO3_hzc/0.jpg]

    It's only one instance, to be sure. But this scene, as Ian McDiarmid points out, is the one time we see Palpatine reach out with compassion to another living thing. Is he evil? Of course. But Lucas at least does show that even in the darkest of hearts, there can be a spark of good, even if not everyone can be saved.

    As for the rest of the Imperial forces...

    Is he evil?

    [image=http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/5/5f/Admiral_piett.jpg]

    Is he?

    [image=http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/1/19/LorthNeedaESB.jpg]

    If the Rebels saw these men running through the wilderness, with no idea of what they were doing, would it be alright if they just came up behind them and shot them? Without giving them any chance to surrender? What have they done that is so evil? Even though the Rebels are at war with the Empire, I presume that everyone still deserves a fair trial.

    The Rebels are fighting people, not monsters. Just people who happen to be on the wrong side but aren't automatically deserving of death. After all, if you're allegiance determined your right to life, then every German soldier should have been killed after WWII.

    When was that? :confused: Is it part of the extended edition?

    For it to be genocide, the Rebels would have to be targeting a race or religion of people. Considering the Empire is composed of humans, like the Rebellion, then I can flatly say that it is not genocide. Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, is fought between different races: men and orcs, who are each trying to wipe each other out. So yes, that does qualify as genocide if you want to look at the technical term. And the Death Stars and SSD were, unfortunately, weapons that the Rebellion destroyed, not to kill everyone on board, but to stop further destruction.

    It says only that the Sith would be destroyed, not that they would have to kill them. Destroying the Sith could just as easily mean bringing them back to the light. In fact, that's exactly what happens in Anakin's case -- he destroys the Sith by giving up his identity as Darth Vader. Though they couldn't save Palpatine, that doesn't mean that the prophecy required his death. Think of Abraham Lincoln's words: "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."

    The same principle applies. The destruction of the Sith in no way requires death. It did only because no one managed to pull Palpatine from the Dark Side.


  7. Nordom Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2004
    star 4
    About the issue of racial diversity. Most often I find this being directed at films with a too white cast. I have not heard it directed against films with an all black cast or all Asian cast.
    Take ?Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?, that has only Asian actors so that makes it bad? It should have some white people and some black people in it? Or the Wiz? That has only black actors so some white and Asian people must be added right?

    It can also be used to trump authorial intent and even historical accuracy. If you make a film about the Native American Indians at a time long before any white people came to America, MUST this movie include some white and black people anyway? If you make a film about the Aborigines at a time long before white people came to Australia, should some white and blacks be added anyway?

    Also question, in a scifi/fantasy setting, is a non human character white, black or Asian? Does this distinction apply? Is Chewie ?white?? He is played by a white actor but does that make the character white? Is C3PO ?white?? Again he is played by a white actor but does that make the character white?
    What about non-humans were the face is clearly visible? Is Spock a white character? Is Worf a black character?
    If you have a film were all characters have green skin is this bad from a racial diversity standpoint?

    It is a fake war in that it is created by one man, Palpatine. Without him there would be no war. From what we see it does not seem that he exploited some existing tension or latent conflict. He told the TF to attack Naboo and they did. He created the seps and told them to attack the republic and they did. Mostly both sides just do what Palpatine tells them to. And the look of the OT, that is not really the war but rather the effects of the empire. There has been 20 years of empire between RotS and ANH, not 20 years of clone war.

    We do not even see Edoras after the war is over and all we see of Minas Tirith is the corronation which is not a year after Saurons fall. Both Rohan and Gondor have lost quite a bunch of people and that will take time to restore. Many villages in Rohan and Gondor were burned down.
    We do see the Shire and that is not changed but there was no war there and the Hobbits seemed not to know much about the war.
    And what happens after Palpatine dies? The empire falls and everyone is free and lives happy ever after so this ending is not very different from the LotR ending. You can not really compare it with the ending in RotS as that has a bad ending and must have. A better comparison is with the ending in RotJ.

    Actually with the Tuskens I mostly objected to those that called them mindless monsters or animals or were questioning that they even were sentient. That killing them all would be no different than to kill a pack of rabid dogs. I think that they are more than animals and that they are sentient.

    The clones are in some ways less than human but they are still sentient.
    1) They have no free will, they are made to be docile and less independent. They follow orders blindly and will kill their best friend without hesitation if so ordered. They are denied by design many things that other living beings have.
    So they have fewer options than humans or other sentient beings have. They can not refuse an o
  8. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Except-- CTHD is depicting an actual historical period and an actual place, and The Wiz was made primarily as an answer to the similarly monoracial Wizard of Oz. Adding diversity to Lee's film would either be contrary to historical fact (something that you're attuned to in the second paragaph). And as for The Wiz-- well, maybe that just means somewhere down the line we'll see a more diverse version of LOTR get made.

    And yet, people make a fuss over Jar Jar. Whatcha gonna do, eh?

    I don't see any contradiction in anything either of us have said. What you're describing is a proxy war, and the III-IV Imperial period is the transition from freedom to fascism I'm talking about. I guess we're just arguing over the pronunciation of the word "tomato".

  9. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    The issue here may be the fact that all the heroes are white while all the evil races are dark-skinner or from tropical regions (think the Haradrim with the Mamuk). And there's the fact that preference for whites is endemic to the film industry. Think of the Dragon Ball Z movie, 21, or the Last Airbender. In the case of 21, all the heroes in real life were Asian. While for the Last Airbender, the cartoon it's based off of includes two relatively dark-skinned Inuits as heroes who were replaced with white people. While the cartoon's pale-skinned villain became Indian. Then, also consider the long history of bigotry towards minorities in Hollywood and it's a bit clearer why people get irritated.

    Yeah, you're right about Edoras, but that hardly makes it better in my opinion. The capital of a nation goes completely unscathed through the war. Really? And as for Minas Tirith, it simply erases the damage from the battle, we never see run-down buildings, rubble, mountains of corpses, etc once the battle is over. It's pristine. And Jackson makes it seem like the coronation happens right after Frodo awakens. We also never see any ruins of burnt down villages or refugees returning to their homes. For all we know, the houses could be fine -- just as Edoras was when they returned from the battle at Helm's deep.


    The difference is that there was a much heavier price paid throughout the Star Wars Saga. If you look at TPM and AOTC, by the time ROTJ rolls around, almost every single organic person that appeared in those films is dead -- most of them violently. Yoda is really the only one who dies of old age. Anakin, Padme, Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Mace, Bail Organa, Beru, Owen, Jango, Boba, Shmi, etc are all dead, having been consumed by the war and Empire. There was a great cost to this battle -- many of the people we knew have died along the way.

    In Lord of the Rings, Boromir, Theoden, Haldir and Denethor die. Who else among the named cast?

    Really? o_O

    So Anakin's actions are wrong? Shouldn't Eomer be condemned then? After all, he and his men killed the Uruk-hai as though they were no different than a pack of rabid dogs -- never giving the chance to surrender. And they hadn't held their recently dead mothers in their arms.

  10. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Okay, just to get us back on topic, please, I'm coming in with another negative example.

    The new Doctor Who. I love it. But you know what? It panders just as much to the kiddie demographic as the PT did, and that leads to a wildly varying tone that can be rather annoying at times. Yes, I know that children are a big part of the show's audience, and that "hiding behind the sofa from the Daleks" is a big part of UK cultural memory from the 60's on, or whenever Terry Nation dreamed them up. But really, in the revamp of the show, did we really need characters like the farting Slavines? Isn't that just as bad as a farting eopie?

    Jar Jar would fit right in with that universe, btw. And the Doctor would probably get along with him famously. Depending on which one it was, granted.
  11. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    The Easterlings encountered near the Black Gate were made white specifically for the sake of political correctness, as was Gollum. ( There's a lesson there, in that Jackson's political correctness ultimately didn't spare him from the racism witch hunt. ) Also, orcs not being white-skinned does not make them equivalent to dark-skinned human races. The race of orcs was originally derived from elves who were undoubtedly white.

    But it doesn't happen in Palpatine's case. If killing Palpatine was a bad thing, then the saga did not have a happy ending. In fact, it's kind of a cliffhanger, as it seems to wait for a hypothetical Episode VII with a more "enlightened" view of evil.

    Actually, it does. If Palpatine can't be redeemed, the only way to destroy the Sith is by killing him.

    Which, as you say, they couldn't do, and wouldn't have been able to do. So their choices are: kill him, or become excuse-making weasels who only fight against evil in the event that said evil gives them written permission.

    Orc deserters? [face_monkey] Maybe they plan to join Rohan because it has better women. I know, I know, being right is still wrong.

    ...but Theoden is still morally tantamount to an invading, murdering orc. What country did he invade again?
  12. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    This may sound weird, but I always thought they looked like they were ladies underneath their masks. They were wearing a lot of make-up. Or at least the one we saw in a close-up.

    Jackson wasn't witchhunted as nearly as Lucas was for characters like Jar Jar and Watto (rather spurious charges, as we've explored here). If you want to say they're equally unjustified in accusations of racism, that's fine. I will say that Jackson's PC-ness could've gone further, in casting a more diverse crop of actors for the heroes. At least he could admit that staying true to Tolkien's vision of a European Middle-Earth comes with some kind of risk, or drawbacks. Lucas admitted that only casting white actors on ANH was a mistake, one that he corrected in each episode since. I'm also reminded of Phil Alden Robinson, director of Field of Dreams, who admitted with a certain amount of shame that he neglected to include a certain Dodgers player who shares his name in the movie, but didn't forget a few others from the same time period.

    But again. Let's move on to other movies and double-standards, please.

    Here's one that might seem a bit of a stretch, but bear with me a bit. A lot of people were weirded out by the way the Clone Wars were handled in AOTC and ROTS, with the future Stormtroopers on the side of the heroes and all these Imperial elements cropping up in the declining Republic, despite the fact that these very things were the point of the whole trilogy's overall story, the transition of a democracy to a dictatorship. It went over peoples' heads, in a lot of cases, leading to fanboy complaints. I for one enjoy how subtle the satire is, and how it can go past you unless you appreciate the context.

    It reminded me of, say, Paul Verhoven's RoboCop or Starship Troopers, movies that were openly parodies of action-movie excess and indictments of corporate America and militarist propaganda in equal turns, not that most audiences would be able to recognize it. Those movies get celebrated for how they can go over peoples' heads, and how people can go unaware that they're rooting for fascists, but the Prequels (and to a certain extent the OT too, at times-- think of how people always mention the Triumph of the Wills medal ceremony in ANH) get these very weird accusations. Perhaps people don't recognize irony in a movie that isn't rated R, or something?
  13. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    White ladies. The point was their skin color ( the troublesome implications of the "men can't wear makeup" thing aside ).
  14. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Not that they can't, but normally don't. Unless they're supposed to be analagous of Ancient Egyptians, or something.
  15. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Again, LOTR does not take place in "our world", a fact which you seem fundamentally unable to accept. Sauron is not remotely human and is indeed trying to cover all the lands in a second darkness. LOTR is fantasy fiction, a genre which permits the existence of pure evil even when politically correct reality somehow does not.

    It doesn't matter. The fact expressed by the line is equally true in the books.

    If we lived in a universe where Youtube commenters were held accountable for their own behavior, that would be one way. Accountability is so last century. But you originally called the allegation confirmed above a "strawman" and responded "of course not!" You're not exactly credible at this point.

    That makes absolutely no sense. The orcs are never portrayed as open to any kind of negotiation, and would face reprisals from Saruman/Sauron if they even tried. And what kind of "agreement" are we talking about here? Giving up half of Rohan? Does history show appeasement to be a successful strategy? Furthermore, it's hard to strike an agreement while an orc is sticking a sword in your mouth.

    Still not true. Luke Skywalker kills a lot of people, and it's not remotely portrayed as being in any way wrong. In Lucas' world, killing the bad guys, and especially the Sith, is right.

    So, Anakin's "damned" as a result of killing the Emperor, eh? Isn't that his ghost standing there with the others at the end? Hasn't he been rewarded rather than damned? How can this apparent incongruity be explained? By the fact that killing the Emperor was never said to be a bad thing, not by Lucas or anyone else. Just you. Furthermore, Anakin killing the Emperor doesn't mean saving the soul of another. It means saving Luke's life, not his soul. His soul wasn't in jeopardy at that point. As someone once said: Let me say it for you nice and slow: HE ... THROWS AWAY HIS WEAPON.

    That sentiment only requires one line to express. Perhaps it would be better if it was expanded into a paragraph? And I don't see where the word "reactionary" comes into it. It seems like projection.

    The exact quote: 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. Emphasis on the word none - and, yes, I still find it difficult to take seriously, as would all the other "bigoted idiots" who found ( gasp! ) poetic flourish in the works of C.S. Lewis' fellow Inkling.

    Unfortunately, you've gone a bit too far down the "all opinions are equally valid" rabbit hole, all the way to "Theoden is morally equivalent to the orcs" and "Nolan is elitist because Batman has a lot of money, even though Batman has had a lot of money since decades before Nolan was born". Some positions are simply not valid when they are contradicted by re
  16. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I guess where people get upset is that there aren't any non-white heroes. I'll be honest, it doesn't bother me excessively the way the films were cast, but I think there is something to be said about the film: it's a bit alienating. In the sense that all our heroes are largely homogeneous, so we're assuming that everyone will automatically identify with them, they're the "default" race. Peter Jackson isn't racist (I don't want to sling mud at the man -- he hasn't done anything to deserve that kind of attack in my opinion), but then, the Lord of the Rings films are generally portraying a conflict that falls along racial lines -- we never see an orc defect and join the heroes, for example. I think this is what others have been referring to when they say it almost has a crusader mentality. Star Wars features plenty of races and species banding together to join fight other groups composed of various races and species. In Lord of the Rings, though, each side seems rather, well,...is insular the right word here?

    I will say, though, that I felt there was a bit of a double standard in the fact that Lucas is often criticized for being racist in TPM, particularly with Jar Jar, when we see several heroic black characters as well -- a black pilot, Mace Windu, and Captain Panaka, who is a rather important minor character.

    I do think you and Nordom may have a point in saying that the accusations of Lord of the Rings being racist are overblown, however. The movie portrays heroes exclusively as white people, but it doesn't portray other human races as anything lesser. So I'll back off from it, okay? [face_peace] That and the fact that "racist" is a rather serious criticism and I don't want to label people with it.

    You're right that they eventually killed Palpatine. My only argument with Nordom in that instance was that he insisted the prophecy demanded that they do so and that they thus had the god-given right to kill Palpatine. I don't think the films portray this at all. I think they do show that, yes, sometimes killing is necessary. But it is not a thing to be celebrated. We can celebrate freedom and peace, yes, but death isn't something that should be relished or held as an ideal. Palpatine was killed so that Luke could live and his death brought balance to the Force. But, I think with Anakin we see that it is always preferable to try to save someone. And if that can't be done, then yes, we have to kill. But it's done as a last resort -- not undertaken as a mission from "god."

    And when have we seen the Tuskens act as anything but monsters? When have they done anything else besides try to kill, maim, or torture? They are portrayed as mindlessly evil as the orcs. Yet both a sentient beings and it is wrong to kill without a fair trial -- without a chance for you to defend yourself from your attack
  17. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Arawn, the whole point of mentioning LOTR in this thread is to illustrate how so many of the empty criticisms that are cast against the PT can be made against other films that go excused, Jackson's Tolkien adaptations being among them. While it may seem as though people are ganging upon LOTR in here (myself among them at times) remember-- everywhere else those movies are taken for granted as critically acclaimed masterpieces, with most of the complaints raised here being quickly drowned out minority opinions, if even that. This isn't intended to be a "why the PT rules and LOTR sucks" thread, but rather an attempt to get past the mainstream critical double standard that's firmly entrenched between Lucas' works and those of others.

    In the interest of getting past the LOTR derailment, I'd like to ask you to mention an example yourself, from elsewhere in contemporary pop-cinema/television canon. As a certain someone said once-- "This bickering is pointless."
  18. JEDI-RISING Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 15, 2005
    star 4
    We're living in an era when the blockbuster movies are Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean. I mean come on. Yet just yesterday the local critic in the arizona republic , here, worked in that the Prequels "never should have been made". He does thatkind of thing about once a month
    so sick of it
  19. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Would you be comfortable with it being called "a mission from the ( Will of the ) Force"?
  20. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Not really. Because either "will of the Force" or "god," both still imply that the killing has been morally endorsed, that it's divinely ordained. And, personally, I don't think that killing ever can be. Sometimes it's necessary, there's no question of that. But that doesn't make the act itself moral. If you kill in self-defense or through necessity, then, of course, you did the right thing. But the right thing was protecting your life, not killing the other person -- it just so happens that one required the other. For example, when we stop a criminal, in my eyes, it's to protect others and hold a that person accountable to what they've done. But killing in and of itself is an evil act because it is final, conclusive -- it can never be undone, and it eliminates the possibility of redemption. And who among us is wise enough to decide that someone can't be saved? That's my personal philosophy anyway, and I hope it explains why I dislike that interpretation. You may, of course, disagree.
  21. -NaTaLie- Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2001
    star 4
    Just came back from the last Harry Potter movie and it was pretty "meh". Radcliffe still can't act but no one seems to notice. The ending was pretty anticlimactic, I remember it being more dramatic in the books. Which brings me to my point: I really think Lucas is not given enough credit for exciting action scenes in the prequels.
  22. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Oh, yes. This is true. Especially in a decade that's seen the rise of rather uninspired action scenes that rely way too much on Bourne-style shakycam and choppy editing to drive the momentum, and not much in the way of clarity in their choreography, coverage or editing. Pretty much any of Lucas' set-pieces beat the stuff you see in most other action-movies, for how easy they are to follow while remaining imaginative and exciting. The only other live-action directors whose work comes close, I'd say, are fellows like Martin Campbell (Casino Royale has some great, if a little over-the-top, stuff), Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run is a modern classic by now, and The International has the best shoot-out sequence since Heat, hands down), and maybe Zhang Yimou (I like Hero, but think it's a little thin and a bit too fantastical-- I frankly miss his more dramatic films like Raise the Red Lantern).

    I haven't watched any of the Potter films much, but I've never thought they had much in the way of action. Really, it just looked like wizards shooting glowy stuff at one another, and whoever has the most glowy stuff wins-- basically, Dragon Ball Z with wands. Is there anything I'm missing? Describe the basics of action set-pieces in the Potter films.
  23. Chiodo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 25, 2004
    star 1
    I hope this doesn't come across as belligerent, but I have to ask: can there really be such a thing as a "double standard" in this situation? It's not a workplace hiring policy, it's a human reaction to something. Let's say all the various points raised here are true, now what? The reaction is what it is, if a person is not moved by Anakin and Padme the way they are by other movie characters, it's not like that's a calculated thing.
  24. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    In the case of a lot of mainstream and fan-circle critics, the "double standard" is there because you'll have people mentioning only a handful of percieved faults about the PT, while giving nothing but hyperbolic praise to other franchises with many of the same faults, as well as their own. It'd be one thing if it were the same old universal condescension that the OT got from a lot of serious critics who viewed blockbuster entertainment with equal derision, but today you've got plenty of commentators who'll lambast TPM and the like but practically compose arias to the likes of LOTR, TDK and Avatar. And it very likely isn't a calculated thing, but rather a lack of self-awareness that borders on the absurd.
  25. MissPadme Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 9, 1998
    star 4
    Going back to Harry Potter again, it's rare you'll find any mainstream critic or publication looking for fault in those films the way many of the very same people (I'm looking at you, Peter "Kool Aid" Travers and Entertainment Weakly) left no stone unturned to find something, anything to justify their loathing for the prequels and/or Lucas.

    Yesterday, I think I came to understand why that's the case. I think most of it is for one simple reason: Harry Potter fans wouldn't tolerate their movies getting treated that way. Oh sure, EW.com has a nitpick section for the films but it still calls the HP flix a "nearly perfect saga." Same goes for Twilight. EW didn't give a single prequel film a better review than a C+ or something for ROTS but gave good if not rave reviews to all of the Twilight films so far. That is despite the huuuge anti-Twilight meme on the internet. Why? They know Twilight fans LOOOOOOVE all things vampiric and sparkly and wouldn't tolerate it if EW had treated any of those movies the same way EW treated the PT. HP and Twilight fans have money to spend and wouldn't drop a penny ever again on a mag that trashed their beloved fandom. I've noticed in fact not a single magazine article I've read about either film series offers the slightest bit of criticism or alludes to any backlash (particularly when it comes to Twilight). The only "tough times" K Stew or R Patz have experienced according to the mainstream media are all of the tabloid stuff and crazed girls bursting into tears at Rob Pattinson's presence. Every interview or whatever I've read with any of the PT stars between 1999 and the present always includes, "How does it feel to be in a movie everybody hated?"

    The difference is the critics and media tearing the prequels a new one believed they were doing so with God and Star Wars fans on their side. There hasn't been an angry, vocal band of HP or Twilight fans spitting nails over their "disappointment." It's no big secret that even now, if you post or write something complimentary to the prequels, they'll come running out of the woodwork to punish you for your heresy. If you post or write something negative about the prequels, they'll come running out of the woodwork to give you a tongue bath. Conventional wisdom among the mainstream media is that Star Wars fans are universal in hating the movies and hating George Lucas personally because the ones who do have hogged the megaphone the past 12 years.

    Certainly there are other reasons but I do have to wonder how things would have been different had various editors worried about a backlash from Star Wars fans upset that their saga didn't get a fair shake.

    --MissPadme
Moderators: Bazinga'd, heels1785
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.