PT The unpopularity and the negativity towards the PT: are people seriously missing out?

Stellar post Cryo! Im grateful you took the time to give your views. I didn't notice that Han is like what Anakin could have been. Good one.

Btw, when Han massages Leia's strained hands, he's made the first move, a smooth operator, while Anakin uses Padme own words that she has an affinity to sand, to "rough course and irritating" then caressing Padme . Leia says meanwhile that her hands are dirty, and yet gives in to Han's kiss. While Padme , apologizes for kissing.

Han and Obi Wan suspended point, I actually posted about that in the "little moments in the PT thread" a few days back http://boards.theforce.net/threads/your-favorite-little-moment-or-detail-in-the-pt.50029786/page-4#post-52395017

You said : There is definitely, I think, a weird and wonderful chiastic cross-talk between the trilogies, within the trilogies, and inside the movies themselves. So many tropes are recycled and appear in some new configuration. We're all quite capable of picking up on some of these resonances (there are so many that it's impossible to ignore them all), but many exist just below conscious notice; and the way they all intertwine is subtle and elusive to the point of sublimity. The links between the movies and the general structuring of all six keep me very intellectually engaged with the series.

Absolutely poignant and you've said it astutely. Perfect!

MJ

 

Thank you, kindly!

I think you had decent aspirations in creating this thread. (And I would still like to get back and address the opening post and, in particular, that video -- though I may go against some of what I've just written in doing so).

"Flaws" and "mistakes", however, are subjective matters only. Too many fans, in my opinion, put themselves on the back foot by speaking as if the prequels have unequivocal weaknesses, rather than arguing for greatness from the very start.

Which isn't to say flaws and mistakes (subjectively speaking) can't be acknowledged or addressed if that person thinks they're there; but it's quite common to see fans throwing out sops and showing that they have been unconsciously influenced (or so it seems to me) by a climate of negativity surrounding these movies.

Arguments from assumed superiority and inferiority grate on me. But if you're a fan of something, I think it's okay to spend more of one's time extolling virtues than lamenting vices; let alone making weak-willed concessions.

Or, at least, if you are going to make criticisms, particularly about what "works" for you and what doesn't, as a conscientious fan, then I think it's more becoming to frame those things repeatedly as one's own opinion, and not as some kind of previously-settled-upon fact.

That is a particular aesthetic wish or grievance of mine, perhaps; not a standard or a template I am asking every fan to adhere to. But I do think these films might be better served with a greater emphasis on positivity. As opposed to complaining or scrapping with others.

Well, I certainly love that last sentence!

I hope I have not put across the idea that there is no place for criticism or a civil airing of a very broad range of views. I hope I welcome that. Homogeneity sucks -- in my opinion.

I just come at this from the angle of someone perhaps trying to motivate themselves to head in more of a positive direction; and not get hemmed in with dessicated debating all the time. It is possible to celebrate, rather than merely denigrate.

The trap of debates, I think, is that they encourage denigration and point-scoring; everyone gets a little caught up in that. But reasoned exchanges are also possible and highly welcome. And I think such things are a way for minds to be changed, and views to be refined, too.

I think we're basically after the same thing: better discussion; no matter the slant/bias of the people involved. And an accounting for different tastes, without rudeness or hectoring from any particular corner.

It can be very unpleasant when you have a minority opinion and a majority quickly walks all over you. Dominant opinions lead to dominant narratives; and they can be extremely intolerant of dissenting or niche views.

Diversity is cool. There are, after all, many characters and many environments in Star Wars; not to mention a "rebel alliance". Plus characters with individualistic traits (consider the "lineage" of Luke: Yoda > Dooku > Qui-Gon > Obi-Wan > Anakin). These are what bring real colour, energy, and meaning to the films and their broad-reaching themes.

To say a little more: unity is a powerful concept, but strength in artistic expression is gained through diversity and variation, which ultimately bring a greater sense of harmony/unity to a culture or a mind. We should all try and accept that people have variant takes on the material and try not to worry so much about differing attitudes. It almost suggests a gross lack of confidence in our own views.

And, at the same time, I remain pretty firm with my own take on matters: that it is fine and even desirable that big-time prequel fans stop dwelling so much on negativity and seek ways of being positive instead. Not because it is the "right" thing to do, necessarily; but at least because it is too easy to be negative and there is as-yet untapped potential in being more positive, open, and celebratory. More treasure surely lies in that direction.

Thank you, MJ. Was fun.

Ah, nice!

There are potentially all kinds of juicy little memes and ideas at play in the intertwining of those details.

WHAT THE--????

How did I not notice that????

Well, maybe I did: subliminally.

Excellent work. I wasn't thinking of such a strict parallel as you picked out.

Those images basically say it all (though you did well to articulate some pretty precise story/scenic connections, as well!).

Thanks, again!

Post was written on the fly. I knew I needed a conclusion of some kind that would serve as a more general comment about my love for the series; why I'm so obsessed with it.

Obviously, there are many psychological reasons; only a handful of which we are consciously aware of. But if I still encapsulated something valid and true, I'm happy with that; happy that I seem to have nailed it for you.

 

Youtube personalities. Comes with the territory. I watched Stuckmann's review. It's a joke. The above criticism exemplifies the overall video review as yet another lame attempt to pass off bias-driven rhetoric as genuine insight. It goes something like this: people either repeat what they hear from other mock-jobs disguised as "thoughtful analyses" or, in the spirit of, contrive completely nonsensical (double) standards concerning that which fails a particular scene or aspect of a movie. Yes, he is indeed just grasping at straws, trying to make a smart sounding criticism out of nothing. To reiterate your rebuke...

First of all, the podrace is depicted as closed-circut, so I'm not sure how dividing up the shot-flow with axial jumps would somehow make it more "well-rounded". Rather, it just sounds like a call for haphazard coverage -- shots flipped arbitrarily for the sake of "complexity" yet with no regard for the established fixed vector of the racers -- in a typical and rather lame attempt to excite the senses by overwhelming them with disorientation. What Lucas employed is something far more disciplined: a basic visual stanza that properly maintains the directional geography of the set piece, therefore emphasizing a visual-to-dramatic momentum. It's nothing new to the saga either. He did the same thing with the trench run in A New Hope (though reversed), the snow speeder attack in Empire and the speeder bike chase in Jedi. For that matter, Kurosawa did the same thing for the horseback chase scene in The Hidden Fortress as did Wyler and Co. for the chariot race in Ben-Hur.

So to Mr. Stuckmann and anyone else who agrees with him on this point, I believe the word you're looking for is "Oops!"

Sorry for the smug rant. It's just, with all the high praise afforded to the Nolans, Bays, Whedons, JJs etc. for their schlock action filmmaking mediocrity, only to then hear such half-baked dismissals of what is arguably the fundamental excelsior of George Lucas' cinematic prowess -- his intuitive mastery of motion and editing -- really burns my biscuits.

 

Or he can have his opinion.

You make fine points in your critique but then proceed to bash anyone who agrees with him as well as a handful of filmmakers. Exactly what this thread didn't need.

 

Just a quick FYI:

I pointed out the podrace camera positioning on this forum a year ago:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/episode-i-15th-anniversary.50020367/page-2#post-51546905

The camera actually does cross the threshold when Anakin's pod flies off of the service ramp.

And it otherwise only maintains the strict positioning I formerly stated if you are talking about wider shots, and not shots from within the pods, or POV racer shots.

But yeah, the camera positioning is quite strict -- and as Ingram_I elucidated, that is a very Lucasian grammar; quite consistent with other big action set-pieces in the saga.

You have a very good rebuttal -- as usual.

Lucas went on to do the same thing in AOTC (and ROTS), as well. The aerial/war-sequence passage of the Battle of Geonosis uses inverted framing (the ships travel from right to left; matching Anakin's earlier night-ride on Tatooine in search of his mother), with respect to the podrace.

It is also inverted with respect to the battle sequence near the beginning of TESB; and also the air speeder chase near the beginning of AOTC itself (suggesting something of a closed circle, since these action sequences -- chasing Zam, chasing Dooku -- top and tail the film).

The major action sequence that the Battle of Geonosis' flying section matches almost perfectly with is the darling original: the Battle of Yavin; which, of course, is the memorable, "Dam Busters"-esque climax of the first movie.

Direction of motion, and directionality, generally, take on a fussy, arch, almost erotic seriousness in the Star Wars movies. Lucas scrupulously frames the action from one side or another, only crossing over or shaking things up with great care. Note that the pursuit of Grievous is a tad messier in this regard; as is Obi-Wan and Anakin's fatalistic sword clash on Mustafar.

It rather astounds me, too. The charge that the prequels have bland cinematography just beggars belief; or my belief, at least. I can see why people might make that claim, though (strange as it is), because the framing is very tardy and constrained; or restrained, anyway. I think people are used to a much punchier and more dimensional or limber approach. But I absolutely love the striking cleanliness and neatness of all of Lucas' compositions. Framings are both generously tight and wide; creating a rich and knowingly-stagey, panoramic effect.

I re-watched "Batman Begins" yesterday. Thought I'd fire up the other big fantasy flick of 2005 ("King Kong" excepted). See how it stacks up to ROTS. Amongst other things, what I really noticed quite quickly -- particularly in the first half -- is just how tight and actor-obsessed the camera is in virtually every scene. It's framed and cut more like an expensive TV movie. But I dare anyone to say the same about any part of ROTS.

To be honest, I think most people prefer more of a talking-heads approach. Ironically, they complain that this is what the PT does, and that's why it's so disquieting and/or disappointing to watch. But I don't think that's the case, at all. Or barely. Exactly what people complain about in the PT's cinematography, blocking, and intercutting is quite damn apparent -- to me, at least -- in other films, like the aforementioned "Batman Begins".

Perhaps they don't notice so much because they prefer the acting elsewhere, or the dialogue, the story, or whatever (or more, I suspect, the placement and manner of particular emotional beats). But overall, I find this knock against the PT baffling. It's quite untrue (or true, in my opinion, from a particularly callow point-of-view), and just not something I find remotely borne out in any of the movies themselves.

Maybe you have to like landscape photography a bit; or be receptive to the idea that cinema is less about motion than it is about stillness and small things happening on a large surface. There is a very studied quality to Lucas' framing in all his movies. I just love the extremely understated way he has of capturing mood and motion. The camera is more of a spectator -- Kubrick's eye with an old-fashioned pulp fetish.

Other movies frequently look and sound so plain next to Star Wars, IMO.

 

My prediction is that with time, nobody will bother to criticize the special effects, just like nobody bothers to criticize Harryhausen special effects. They will be respected as a product of their time, and then the story will finally shine through to society, instead of being blinded by the newness.

 

Whatever "bashing" means to this extent, what I'm doing is criticizing a bad argument. Ruthlessly and even imperiously, perhaps, but I'm not insulting anyone for simply having a different opinion. Nor does criticizing what one deems lesser filmmaking constitute a slandering of the filmmakers involved.

 

"Schlock action filming mediocrity" were your words. You're not criticizing a bad argument, your criticizing "an" argument. One you don't happen to agree with. Implying that all agree with him are wrong and should just admit, "oops". It is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you were correct about one thing; it was smug.

 

Yeah, and? Using critical adjectives in reference to the filmmaking of specific directors is not bashing those directors.

First of all, it IS a bad argument. I can say that because I have since made a case detailing why. If you disagree, great; you then provide a counterargument in the process and we take it from there. That's how it works. And of course I imply that anyone who agrees with Stuckmann's assessment is wrong, because the assessment itself is ill-conceived and shallow. I cannot by definition disagree with his point and then simultaneously accept it as valid because it is shared by others. That makes no sense. You keep saying I'm entitled to my opinion ...well, I've made no such assertion otherwise regarding anyone else. I'm not bashing people for having or agreeing upon the aforestated opinion; I'm contending the opinion itself.

And I would say that Stuckmann's whole review of the film is rather flippant and smug, no matter how much he pretenses some kind of fair-minded objectivity. That too is fine, ultimately. I'm merely reciprocating.

 

Ok.

 

But the problem really isn't with the cgi. The problem lies with the acting. Outdated effects is one thing, but bad acting is another thing entirely. It's unforgivable.

 

Nobody cares about the acting in King Kong or Wizard of Oz, or any of the Harryhausen movies. Heck, nobody even cares about the acting in other modern blockbusters. And especially nobody cares about the acting in the OT. Even more than that, nobody in the entire world cares about the acting in Star Trek.

 

Right, the quality of the dialogue and the acting in the PT isn't vastly different from the OT. If you really want to nitpick something about the acting in the originals, it would easily be that:



Unless you really want to watch some very good acting and excellent dialogue in movies, I suggest you to watch some Shakespearean movies, which, at the end, ends up to be pretty boring and you'll be sleeping....

 

The criticism of the pod race shooting is dumb. It's a race scene and you need to establish the spatial trajectory of where the racers are headed. There's a lot of boring cinematography in the PT, especially in 2 and 3 as the limits of the sound stage takes over, but the pod race is actually some of the best in the PT, at least for action.

 

I just tried talking to my sister about which way one should watch the Saga, release or chronological?

My sister: "The way I watched them."

Me: "So, you mean release order?"

My sister: "4-6 then 1-3"

She feels that the "I am your father" twist would be ruined and then she went on how many people believe 1-3 are not as good as the originals. Sounds like she's been drinking the hater kool aid.

 

I thinlk that the best way for new viewers is the Machete order: 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6 (and then 7, 8, 9)

On my side, I've started with Episode III 10 years ago, but I already knew what happened in the OT before watching Episode III and the other prequels and originals since my friend has already spoiled me before watching any of the films!

 

Eh, I think machete order and now even release order is too confusing. It was just 4-6 and 1-3 it's fine, but now that we have or will have 7-9, I don't think release order makes sense anymore.

Also listen to this, my mom and sister say they like the PT namely TPM and AOTC. They say they just don't like ROTS because they feel it's "too dark". Which is funny because some say ROTS wasn't dark enough. Actually I'm not sure if my sister has even seen ROTS. She claims she has, but I'm not convinced. I know my dad hasn't, he always says, "Too scary" and leaves the room.

 

I'd be one of those. RotS may be the darkest of the Saga but this is a *war* Saga it ought to show the affects and grisliness in an appropriate manner but no it's whitewashed for kids. A very poor choice. It distorts not only scope and depth but impact. War isn't 'harmless fun' and it's a mistake to handle it so.

 

I watched them all in release order and I WISH I could have seen them in chronological order first. I can only imagine how surprising it would be when Anakin became Vader, and then how suspenseful (and funny) it would be knowing all the family relations. More importantly, seeing Yoda in the prequels really gives his character an arc. It also adds suspense when Luke starts training with him, as we see Yoda has a second chance to make things right. Similar feelings with Obi-Wan on a 1-6 viewing. We see Obi-Wan turn into a wiser Jedi, giving him an arc as well, instead of just being a static archetype. We see Luke facing similar challenges to Anakin, and with better guidance, we see how Luke chooses the right path on his own. Luke chooses loyalty over duty, but still rejects the dark side, showing that there is another way between the unhealthy detachment of duty and unhealthy attachment. It's very powerful when watched 1-6. We go from misguided forbidden attachment (to keep order) destroying the galaxy, to loyalty saving the day and saving the galaxy.

 

Machete order (which actually omits I, unlike the order your provided), or any dramatic re-ordering of the series, is a terrible way for new viewers to watch the series. A new viewer isn't going to want to watch a whole or partial separate trilogy (basically its own story) in the middle of another trilogy. It completely ruins the flow and ultimately doesn't make sense from a story perspective. Someone would have to stop and explain to the new viewer what they're doing and why they're showing the movies "out of order" when the new viewer probably just wants to get on with Return of the Jedi and see how it ends.

There are really only two options when faced with a real new viewer: release order or chronological order. Anything else can be fun for existing fans. It gives us a new perspective on the series and whatnot, but they are terrible for new viewers.

 

Maybe...

But the reason why I thought that the Machete order may be a good idea was because one of my friends asked me in which order he should watch the movies. On my side, I didn't knew what answer I should give him since I've never watched any of the movies in their chronological order or in their release order. For my first viewing of the movies the order I've watched the movies was (and if I take also in account that I've watched the original Star Wars on TV when I was 5 or 6 years old, even if I didn't really remember anything until I was viewing it for the first time on DVD 10 years later):

IV (first viewing on TV 20 years ago), III, I, II, IV (second viewing on DVD ), V, VI

 

I introduced both of my siblings to Star Wars using 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6 order, and they both said they were glad to have watched it that way. I first watched them in release order, but I think there's a lot to be gained from having watched the prequels before seeing RotJ, either in chronological order or Machete/Ernst Rister Order.

I've also heard people suggest 1, 2, (TCW), 4, 5, 3, 6 as an order, but I've never tried it myself.

 

Where's 3?

 

I started with RotJ. Order doesn't truly matter in the end. All these talks basically are about superiority complexes by the tone. That's hardly the point, folks. When presented with a Newbie the best option is to let *them* decide for themselves. Fan biases are a terrible thing to inflict on a SW innocent. If they seek info give it but 'this is only valid' or 'I will only like you if' which is how these things read, really reflects poorly on the fans.

Second to last in the quote, Saga Fan.

 

Between 5 and 6.