Why was AOTC not loved by the public and media?

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by DBrennan3333, Nov 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jed_Chronos Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 24, 2004

    What's the criteria for "development?"

    Hmmm...let's think about this....

    "Development" could be...let me see...well, understanding a character and his/her motivations? For instance, maybe Lucas could have explained why Anakin has been thinking of a girl every day that he met ten years past and knew for approximately two weeks? Why is that?

    Or maybe show a side of Anakin that isn't whiny and obsessed? Or a side of Obi-Wan that isn't a stick-in-the-mud? Or a side of Padme, period? Or a scene with Dooku, Palpatine, or anyone that doesn't only serve to grind the plot incessantly forward?
  2. Hudnall Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 23, 2004
    star 5
    What's the criteria for "development?"?

    Apparently, many people's definition is more than .5 seconds of screentime.
  3. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Well, Jed, I'd have to say that those are your opinions, but they aren't backed up by the elements we see in the film.

    "For instance, maybe Lucas could have explained why Anakin has been thinking of a girl every day that he met ten years past and knew for approximately two weeks?"

    Could this be because Anakin loves her? It's called love at first sight, and you never forget your first love (at least, that's what poets have been suggesting since we've had the written word).

    "Or maybe show a side of Anakin that isn't whiny and obsessed?"

    How about the side that is vengeful? Or the side that's in love? We see all of that in the film, like after he kills the Tuskens, or goes on the picnic with Padme.

    "Or a side of Obi-Wan that isn't a stick-in-the-mud?"

    He orders a drink in the bar, and has a drink with Dex. He smiles alot when he's around his friends in the film (on the lift, in the diner).

    "Or a side of Padme, period?"

    We see her angry, sad, and prepared to die. She smiles, cries, and laughs. She can be solemn, or she can joke in the middle of an arena battle (agressive negotiations). And she's on top of things...

    "Or a scene with Dooku, Palpatine, or anyone that doesn't only serve to grind the plot incessantly forward?"

    Dooku's scene with Obi Wan doesn't move the plot forward; it establishes the relationship between the characters. Anakin's scene with Palpatine also just establishes the relationship between the two. Finally, Dooku's scene with Sidious just serves as a summation of what's gone on - it reveals the truth behind the action of the film without moving the plot further forward.

  4. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    We see him in one stage in TPM, and at another stage in AotC. Therefore, we see progress/development

    That's progress/development ? Well Obi has a beard at the beginning of aotc, is that a great sign of progress/development?

    And we see his character develop (his role at Shmi's funeral, or in the Arena) over the course of the film.

    Hang on. Standing at a funeral is development ?
    And as for the arena , well you're well into contradicting yourself now, you said that 3po being rebuilt was a contrast to Anakin and now you're pointing to the scene where he's actually dismantled. C'mon.

    And, most importantly: what's postmodern about it?


    Anakin is filled with rage because of Shmi's death, sure. But does he ever say that he's sorry for the death of the Tuskens?

    So you believe that he thinks he was right to murder women and children?

    And it is Anakin's development as a villain paralleling Luke's development as a hero that is post modern.

    Why is it postmodern ?

    The film's major storyline, Anakin's, develops exactly like Macbeth

    Ah, so ripping-off another story is called "intertextualising" ?

    So if I understand your definition of postmodern correctly it should:
    Be intertextual.
    Have some parallel character story
    Reference another genre.

    How about Ben Hur ? You've got your references to other 'texts' : it had already been made once, based on a book. Parallel characters - Heston and Boyd. Plus it references the Roman/Slave epic genre and references the Bible.

    So is Ben Hur postmodern ?

    Think of Ulysses, by James Joyce. AotC is analagous.

    ......... er ... can't see it myself.

    Saying you can find allusions in any film is also a broad statement.

    Nah, it's easy. Firstly - how many films can you think of that are wholly original ? Most films have some sort of drama which involves very common themes - love, betrayal, desire for power, hate etc. then you just find another film with one of those elements and claim that it reminds you of it.

    "What makes you think that complex characters = postmodernism?"

    I don't think that characters were complex before modernity


    Okay so you think that they had complex characters in modernism.
    However, you also said previously:

    the genre itself is one that manages to escape attempts at definition, except by what it is not. Post modernism is not modernism, and that's all we have to work with.

    So if complex characters are there in modernism and postmodernism is not modernism ....

    It doesn't matter what he 'intended'. What matters to me is how I see it.

    But you're saying more than 'how' you see it, you're putting it into a genre/definition.


    "QUOTATION: The postmodern reply to the modern consists of recognizing that the past, since it cannot really be destroyed, because its destruction leads to silence, must be revisited: but with irony, not innocently. I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very cultivated woman and knows he cannot say to her, ?I love you madly? because he knows that she knows (and that she knows that he knows) that these words have already been written by Barbara Cartland. Still, there is a solution. He can say, ?As Barbara Cartland would put it, I love you madly.?

    ATTRIBUTION: Umberto Eco (b. 1932), Italian semiologist, novelist.


    And that's why I don't think it is postmodern.
    Lucas is not being ironic . In the 60's and 70's there was a certain irony and winking and tongue-in-cheek approach to old-fashioned or fantastic type stuff, this was meant to appeal to the adults. But Lucas chose not to take that route, he had everyone play it quite earnestly, straight, like they meant it, not with a knowing wink and the films follow that vein.



    g


  5. Jeds_Angry_Ghost Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Well, Jed, I'd have to say that those are your opinions, but they aren't backed up by the elements we see in the film.

    Who's "we"?

    The blind devotees who refuse to acknowledge that anything is wrong with Star Wars ever?

    An objective bunch, those. Let's move on...


    Could this be because Anakin loves her? It's called love at first sight, and you never forget your first love (at least, that's what poets have been suggesting since we've had the written word).

    Yeah, but in the real world a young boy isn't that obsessed with a girl he barely knows to the point where he thinks about her every day for ten years. That's called psychosis.

    Wouldn't it have been more realistic and titillating if they met again and became reacquainted on mutual terms, both resisting it and eventually succumbing...instead of the creepy stalker story we have now? Wouldn't it have been better to show the love, instead of merely telling us about it?


    "Or maybe show a side of Anakin that isn't whiny and obsessed?"

    How about the side that is vengeful? Or the side that's in love? We see all of that in the film, like after he kills the Tuskens, or goes on the picnic with Padme.


    When he's vengeful, he's still whiny. When he's in love, he's creepy and obsessed.


    "Or a side of Obi-Wan that isn't a stick-in-the-mud?"

    He orders a drink in the bar, and has a drink with Dex. He smiles alot when he's around his friends in the film (on the lift, in the diner).


    Obi-Wan is fleshed out a bit better, no thanks to the script. That's all McGregor.


    "Or a side of Padme, period?"

    We see her angry, sad, and prepared to die. She smiles, cries, and laughs. She can be solemn, or she can joke in the middle of an arena battle (agressive negotiations). And she's on top of things...


    Yeah, her performance is a regular tour de force. Oscar bait. Solid stuff.

    Wait...did you see the same film I did? The one where C-3PO and R2-D2 were more emotive? Let me repeat: the robots delivered a better performance.


    Finally, Dooku's scene with Sidious just serves as a summation of what's gone on - it reveals the truth behind the action of the film without moving the plot further forward.

    It...uh...moves the plot forward, chief.
  6. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    "That's progress/development ? Well Obi has a beard at the beginning of aotc, is that a great sign of progress/development?"

    Well, let's try to stick with character development. Of course, as time goes by for the characters, there will also be physical development.

    "Hang on. Standing at a funeral is development ?"

    It is for Threepio. He's not shooting his mouth off inappropriately.

    "And as for the arena , well you're well into contradicting yourself now, you said that 3po being rebuilt was a contrast to Anakin and now you're pointing to the scene where he's actually dismantled. C'mon."

    Well, both Luke and Anakin are 'dismantled' (hand wise) so yeah.

    "And, most importantly: what's postmodern about it?"

    The intertextual character development is post modern. Anakin is the antithesis of Luke, but the two develop in the exact same way.

    "So you believe that he thinks he was right to murder women and children?"

    Well, he says that "They're animals, and I slaughtered them like animals!" I'd say he feels justified.

    "Why is it postmodern ?"

    Because it is intertextual, and arrives at a different end point than Luke's development.

    "Ah, so ripping-off another story is called "intertextualising" ?"

    We'd call it bricolage, not 'ripping off'.

    "So if I understand your definition of postmodern correctly it should:
    Be intertextual.
    Have some parallel character story
    Reference another genre.

    How about Ben Hur ? You've got your references to other 'texts' : it had already been made once, based on a book. Parallel characters - Heston and Boyd. Plus it references the Roman/Slave epic genre and references the Bible.

    So is Ben Hur postmodern ?"

    Not having seen it, I couldn't say. But film is a medium that is almost always post modern, simply because of the time period it was made in.

    "Okay so you think that they had complex characters in modernism.
    However, you also said previously:

    the genre itself is one that manages to escape attempts at definition, except by what it is not. Post modernism is not modernism, and that's all we have to work with.

    So if complex characters are there in modernism and postmodernism is not modernism .... "

    post modernism can incorporate elements of the modern within it, or of any other literary or artistic type. that's why it is hard to pin it down to one definition.

    "But you're saying more than 'how' you see it, you're putting it into a genre/definition."

    Good point. However, I see it as postmodern.

    "Lucas is not being ironic . In the 60's and 70's there was a certain irony and winking and tongue-in-cheek approach to old-fashioned or fantastic type stuff, this was meant to appeal to the adults. But Lucas chose not to take that route, he had everyone play it quite earnestly, straight, like they meant it, not with a knowing wink and the films follow that vein. "

    it doesn't actually have to be ironic. AotC is obviously influenced by other genres (film noir, western, etc.) and Lucas incorporates some of those elements into a new film experience. "I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very cultivated woman and knows he cannot say to her, ?I love you madly? because he knows that she knows (and that she knows that he knows) that these words have already been written by Barbara Cartland. Still, there is a solution. He can say, ?As Barbara Cartland would put it, I love you madly.? "

    So Lucas is, in effect, saying "As John Huston, Shakespeare, and Joseph Campell have said, here's the development of the protagonist."
  7. Jeds_Angry_Ghost Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2004
    The film's major storyline, Anakin's, develops exactly like Macbeth.

    Heh heh...uh, have you read MacBeth?

    So you understand character development isn't simply a black slate saying TEN YEARS HAVE PASSED AND ANAKIN LOVES PADME...fade up to older Anakin, etc?
  8. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Here's another definition of postmodern, from Chris Baldick and the Oxford Dictionary of Literary terms...

    "As applied to literature and other arts, the term is notoriously ambiguous, implying thta modernism has been superceded or that it has continued into a new phase. Postmodernism may be seen as a continuation of modernism's alienated mood and disorienting techniques and at the same time as an abandonment of its determined quest for artistic coherence in a fragmented world... [T]he postmodernist greets the absurd or meaningless confusion of contemporary existence with a certain numbed or flippant indifference, favoring self conciously depthless works of fabulation, pastiche, bricolage or aleatory disconnection."

    He goes on (and on) to describe how "those who most often use it tend to welcome the postmodern as a liberation from the heirarchies of high and low culture..." That's where we are - pop film as art, which exists as both high and low culture simultaneously depending on how you interpret events in the film.

    In other words
  9. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Oops... cut the last bit out accidentally. Here, let's go into this for jeds...

    Macbeth is about a mna who kills in order to gain more power. However, Macbeth feels like he is entitled to this greater authority. he does not see his actions as evil, per se. Anakin also desires more power, but he has altruistic intentions for that power (wants to be a jedi, wants to free slaves and bring back his dead mother).

    So, any questions about that? I din't mean that Birnam Wood had come to Dunsinane, or that Obi Wan wasn't born of woman. Geez...

    Oh, and why is Anakin loving Padme 'stalking'? I mean, it's okay that he grows into this horrible cyborg jedi killer, but we can't believe he harbors a crush on a beautiful Queen he met when he was a dirt farmer? If I didn't know better, I'd say you were just being deliberately confrontational.

  10. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Hmm... did you just get banned and come back under another name Ghost? And WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP CALLING ME CHIEF! (for Letterman fans)
  11. Hudnall Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 23, 2004
    star 5
    Sure, Chief.

    Comparing MacBeth to AOTC Anakin in terms of development ranks at the all time terrible analogies. You might as well equate Abe Lincoln's oratory skills with Porky Pig.
  12. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Well, they follow the same structure. We see the development of a character who does not believe he is evil. Just think of AotC as the pop culture version of the Scottish play.
  13. Hudnall Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 23, 2004
    star 5
    And both Lincoln and Porky Pig can speak..... sort of. ;)
  14. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    For anybody who's been watching Duck Dodgers lately, Porky can speak eloquently.

    For those of us who want to get back on track here... Hudnall, do you believe that AotC was not loved by the public and media?
  15. The_Nameless_One Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 4
    I'm a member of the public, and I loved it to bits :)
  16. Hudnall Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 23, 2004
    star 5
    I don't believe that it was loved by the public or media. I think that it can attribute a huge portion of it's success to being part of the SW franchise.

    Based purely on academics, I think that the Box Office totals adjusted for inflation show that the general consumer didn't recieve it as well as ANY of the other films, TPM included. In fact, TPM smoked it. Even ROTJ smoked it.

    Based on media, I think it was the least recognized - though I feel people were much kinder to AOTC than it deserved.

    Personally, I don't know a single person (outside of my SW die-hard friends) who liked it. My SW die-hard friends tend to like it, some of them a lot. But I don't know anyone whom we could classify as "general audience" who liked it. I hear "OK", or indifferent or just plain profanity.

    For me, I think it is the worst. A terrible film whose only emotion is derived from the development of other films. But that is my opinion. I would give anything if it was it was as good as Phantom Menace, and I would love for Lucas to "SE" this film.

  17. Go-Mer-Tonic Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 1999
    star 6
    That's just ridiculous. To actually attribute anything you felt while watching AOTC to the other films in the series is really going out of your way to comdemn AOTC.

    Fair and balanced is not what comes to mind with the way you make your case.
  18. Sith_Sensei__Prime Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 22, 2000
    star 5
    Was Attack of the Clones loved by the public and media?

    [image=http://www.clickmagazine.net/cm/emoticons/YesNo.gif]
  19. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Nice smilies...

    And, although it is a statistically small percentage of the world's population, all of my friends enjoyed AotC. Maybe because it's Star Wars. The reason doesn't matter; only the result counts.

    Oh, and while it is 'only' at #80 on the all time adjusted box office (according to www.boxofficemojo.com) that is still #80 out of all of the films in the list. And #22 worldwide.
  20. Hudnall Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 23, 2004
    star 5
    I see your argument about "fair and balanced." But I have watched it objectively, that is why I condemn it so bad. I've probably watched it more than you. It's Star Wars, it's in the rotation.

    To actually attribute anything you felt while watching AOTC to the other films in the series is really going out of your way to comdemn AOTC.

    But - I wouldn't say it is "going out of my way." I would argue that the vast majority of the viewing audience is carrying with them emotional baggage and carry-overs from the other films. It is natural.

    And LFL uses that emotional carry-over. Look at the TPM teaser poster. The emotion derived from seeing a young boy cast Vader's shadow is almost exclusively from the OT. It is true for even non-OT characters like Watto. You almost have to know the events of TPM to pity the state that he is in AOTC. Without TPM, that scene is virtually meaningless.

    I suggest that what little emotional weight there is in the film is based on how we know of the characters prior to AOTC. Not "out of the way" at all.

    The same cannot be said for ANH, TPM or ESB and borderline ROTJ - where the events of the film change and alter and develop their characters, and the baggage is bonus, not mandatory.
  21. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    The 'emotional weight' of AotC is caused in part by the way characters are created in the other films, yes. If we could get all of the character development into one film, it would play out like a certain 'other trilogy' that has gotten some good publicity lately. We are talking about a series here, and it only makes sense for us, as an audience, to compare elements in order to further our understanding of what takes place in the course of the series and character's development.

    You mention TPM's teaser poster. It's a good example. Since this trilogy (the PT) is a mirror of the OT, it makes sense to compare the two, and to have common elements and threads between the two. That's part of where the drammatic tension is created (thesis, antithesis, synthesis).
  22. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    It is for Threepio. He's not shooting his mouth off inappropriately.

    :confused: huh? So he's developed into someone who doesn't shoot his mouth off ? Have you seen the last half hour of aotc?

    Well, both Luke and Anakin are 'dismantled' (hand wise) so yeah.

    What do you mean "so yeah"? You're ignoring your own points now - you said 3po's rebuild was a parallel to Anakin's 'struggle' .

    The intertextual character development is post modern. Anakin is the antithesis of Luke, but the two develop in the exact same way.

    Yeah, i got that. But you seem to be running in your own internal logic now - 'Parallel characters are postmodern because postmodern = parallel characters' .
    What makes you think parallel characters are postmodern?

    Anakin is the antithesis of Luke, but the two develop in the exact same way.

    but they don't develop in the exact same way.

    Well, he says that "They're animals, and I slaughtered them like animals!" I'd say he feels justified.

    You don't think he feels guilty about this?

    Because it is intertextual, and arrives at a different end point than Luke's development.

    What's postmodern about that? They were doing that in the bible.

    Not having seen it, I couldn't say. But film is a medium that is almost always post modern, simply because of the time period it was made in.

    Oh well [/throws hands up in air] I mean if it's "almost always" then what use is it ?


    post modernism can incorporate elements of the modern within it, or of any other literary or artistic type. that's why it is hard to pin it down to one definition.

    Yeah but you said : "postmodern character - a character is complex"

    And I asked you how complex characters= postmodern. And you still haven't explained it. How do you know the complex characters aren't just straightforward modernism

    So Lucas is, in effect, saying "As John Huston, Shakespeare, and Joseph Campell have said, here's the development of the protagonist."

    But didn't you say that Lucas's intent was irrelevant ?
    --------------

    Sorry but your definition of postmodern is so vague and broad that I just don't think it has much meaning, and so when you say :
    AotC stands on its own as an excellent example of post-modern storytelling.

    It sounds grand but doesn't mean much. Especially since (whatever the genre or style SW is ) Lucas has been doing it since '77 and to give the kudos to aotc shows a lack of appreciation of the original.

    Macbeth is about a mna who kills in order to gain more power. However, Macbeth feels like he is entitled to this greater authority. he does not see his actions as evil, per se.

    That's it ?
    That's a definition of just about every villain! Is Goldfinger like Macbeth? Blofeld ? Judge Doom ?

    Your definitions are so broad and vague as to be meaningless.
    -----------

    g

  23. raymond Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 30, 2003
    star 1
    i don't care what other people think about AOTC, the movie was an instant classic,

    whats not to like, about AOTC, you got LOve and war!!

    Awsome MOVIE, Can't wait till EP3!

    P.S Folks!! its a movie! NOT A English class PROJECT!!

  24. Sith_Sensei__Prime Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 22, 2000
    star 5
  25. Darth_Mimic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 30, 2003
    star 4
    Ahem. Let the English class continue...

    "So he's developed into someone who doesn't shoot his mouth off ? Have you seen the last half hour of aotc?"

    It's appropriate for him to be screaming and mostly incoherent in the middle of a battle - he's a protocol droid. And, basically, he's talking mostly to himself.

    "What do you mean "so yeah"? You're ignoring your own points now - you said 3po's rebuild was a parallel to Anakin's 'struggle'."

    threepio's psychological development mirrors the development of Luke and Anakin. However, all three characters are physically damaged over the development of the series. Actually, they all lose arms or hands at some point. So 'yeah, Threepio's rebuild parallels Anakin and Luke's struggle'.

    "Yeah, i got that. But you seem to be running in your own internal logic now - 'Parallel characters are postmodern because postmodern = parallel characters' .
    What makes you think parallel characters are postmodern?"

    It's not just that they parallel each other; the characters are also opposites. And since the trilogy puts forth the original (thesis - Anakin develops as a villain), and its opposite (antithesis - Luke has the same influences, but develops as a hero), and then combines the two (synthesis - Luke and Vader team up against the Emperor, for vastly different reasons) just like The Waste Land, I feel confident that this is a post modern film.

    "but they don't develop in the exact same way."

    Both are raised on Tatooine. Neither know their father growing up. Both escape Tatooine in service to what they consider a greater cause. Both are trained by Obi Wan. Both know Yoda. Both are tempted by the Dark Side. Both know royalty. Both are teased as children, and grow beyond that. Both lose a hand. Both are excellent pilots. Both have the Force, which sets them apart from other people. Both fly with Artoo. Both know how to fix mechanical equipment. Both end up in a military role.

    "What's postmodern about that? They were doing that in the bible."

    The Bible is more postmodern than anything else ever written. It's a single, cohesive narrative written by multiple writers in multiple languages over generations. Foucault was right to talk about the death of the single author...

    "Oh well [/throws hands up in air] I mean if it's "almost always" then what use is it ?"

    That's for you to decide, of course. I'm sure Derrida's acolytes felt the same way when they were trying to discuss literature with him.

    "And I asked you how complex characters= postmodern. And you still haven't explained it. How do you know the complex characters aren't just straightforward modernism"

    Mostly because a character is no longer bound by this need to 'represent' something. Anakin can be good and evil simultaneously because he's not meant to be interpreted (semiotically) as 'goodness' or 'the perils of the Dark Side'.

    "But didn't you say that Lucas's intent was irrelevant ?"

    Right. What I should have said was "I believe taht Lucas is showing us is teh development of the protagonist, whether he 'intends' to or not.

    "Sorry but your definition of postmodern is so vague and broad that I just don't think it has much meaning, and so when you say :
    AotC stands on its own as an excellent example of post-modern storytelling."

    It is a massive genre, or style. The only part of the definition that all critics agree on is that it usually comes after modernism (although Shakespeare and the Bible are both post modern in sensibility, if not timing).

    "That's a definition of just about every villain! Is Goldfinger like Macbeth? Blofeld ? Judge Doom ?"

    Well, Goldfinger, Blofeld, and Doctor Doom all recognize that they are evil. they know and take the time to recognize that they are comitting evil actions to further their petty desires. Anakin and Macbeth believe they are acting in the best interests of society in general by taking more power.

    "Your definitions are so broad and vague as to be meaningless."

    They've been trying to come up with a 'tight' definition for post modernism for a
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.