Saga Point of view - George Lucas was right not to listen to the embittered fans

Man, that would have been so cool!

 

Funny how people choose to willingly ignore this. Creating exciting shots means more than just putting a whole bunch of things on the screen. You've got to use certain angles at certain times and cut them correctly to help create the dynamics of the scene, and position the characters in a way to show the relationship between them and so on.
If a scene has a lot of objects in it then it distracts from the characters in that scene, especially if the angles and editing are predictable and static.
And the action scenes are too often ends to themselves, don't advance either the plot or the characters and are still edited in a rather mundane way.

And criticisms of the blocking most apply to the exposition/character scenes, which there are no shortage of considering the films' reliance on spoken exposition to advance the plot and show character relations. They're shot like a basic television show like a soap opera or sitcom.

 

I personally fail to see, how a criticism against cluttered action scenes, and wide shots, contradicts the repetitive, and static nature of the dialogue/exposition shots. They both point to a director enamoured by digital technology above everything else.

 

Well obviously we should storm the ivory towers of academia and expose all those medieval hack frauds

I don't know anything about Shakespeare analysis, but if there's a hack inconsistent characterization the storytelling must be excelling in other areas - or, even better, there's an artistic justification for the inconsistency.

TPM and AOTC just look like they needed another draft or two, imo.

Not his skills or development, just defying orders.

HevyDevy

The latter doesn't count (^^), but yea, I'd forgotten about the first one.

This kind of leads into another thing: what are these "trials", aside from cementing his status? If he'll have trials, he's gonna be initiated into some new class where he's gonna become even moar powerful? Or is he gonna be sent to "assignments", making him improve by being in the field? Speculation, isn't it.

What ends up frustrating him, especially towards the end, is how he's not powerful enough and being held back in the training - I don't think Obiwan says anything about that, let alone anything is shown in their interactions.

It's storytelling negligence in either case.

Plus, an inconsistent picture in terms of who's the more skilled one - has Anakin grown beyond Ob1, or is he just arrogant? During the chase, he comes off as somewhat less developed than Obiwan.

Who tells him his senses aren't developed enough yet (so he's stating it, as opposed to saying he won't train him as much), Anakin retorts implying Obiwan is just as bad, and he responds with sarcasm. Then they both simultanteously sense the worms, or Anakin does that one split second earlier?

It's just not clear at all.
Why did he blame others for not saving his mum, would he have sensed it earlier, or more intensely? Obiwan just told him, his senses aren't developed yet... and Anakin replied, no they are. So... is Obiwan underappreciating him, or actually holding back his progress?

If Anakin's rant is just supposed to be really irrational (i.e. "he doesn't praise me enough" -> "actually he's sabotaging everything"), it should've been established what the rational view would've been.
Very murky, all of this.

 

Hoooooooooooooooo, boy.

Such a plump thread!

Symbolism, cinematography, thematic/artistic worth of the prequels........

Where to go, where to go? So many thoughts, so little time. One of many potential responses for now:

The broader philosophical problem, I think you're tapping into, is the problem of personal liberty versus what is "good" for society. And I don't think Stanley Kubrick nor George Lucas has solved that problem.

If Kubrick sympathizes with Alex, that is to the film's downfall, in my estimation. I think, alternately, he deals in layers of awareness; his total sympathy is not really with one character or another. On the other hand, Alex is the most vivid character in the film, by a long, long way; and that has certainly led to accusations -- believe it or not -- that the film is cardboad in its pretensions and terribly hammy, simplistic, and self-defeating (not to mention male-centric and anti-woman). Even Kubrick said he had made a relatively "simple" movie. And he seems to have made it as something of a vessel in which to vicariously explore his own fascination with the -- quote unquote (i.e., it's contestable) -- primal, and, if you like, Sybaritic side of man. And yes, we all recognize ostracism to be a terrible burden/blow (hence scapegoating and its negative connotations), so that is one way Kubrick extracts a degree of horror from Alex's fate. Kubrick claimed he was even attracted to the story, once he finally read Burgess' novel, because (in addition to the appeal of the writing and the depraved protagonist) it had a symmetrical narrative (Alex as perpetrator, Alex as victim; Alex "cured" -- of the "cure" itself? -- and about to return to being a perpetrator at the end?); not unlike Star Wars, actually.

Both filmmakers trenchantly play with paradox in their movies. You can't solve these movies by snapping your fingers. One, two, buckle my shoe? Back to the idea of sympathy, I think the noir-ish monologue also helps in allowing a viewer to sympathize with Alex. Anakin doesn't have that Oscar Wilde, dandy-ish insouciance to him. I mean, they're very different characters, yeah, inhabiting different worlds? You're really stacking the deck. Digital apples and clockwork oranges. And again, paradox is ever at work. Kubrick is smart enough to know that the use of classical music -- from that recalcitrant rebel Beethoven (Alex has something in common with him) -- can be used to paper over hideous violence (the Nazis and their love of Wagner) and even enlarge one's capacity for it (Alex treats listening to Beethoven with reverence and as a sexual climax after sprees of violence). Then there is the obvious "class" collision between the plebiscite Alex and the "lofty" realm of classical music (although Beethoven is very well-known and almost "rock 'n' roll"); mirroring the weird dialectic of the film itself between "high" expression and the almost pornographic nature of what it depicts.

I think, what you really mean, is that "A Clockwork Orange" is a very loud and darkly-funny film: sharp, spicy, outrageous, Mondrian, gaudy. I mean, it's much, much more of a comedy, on its face, than a movie like "Revenge Of The Sith". Do you find "Eyes Wide Shut" as compelling? That movie has a weirder, kinkier, and more abstract, slow-burn, quality; if anything, *that* movie makes for a better comparison with the prequels (and with Lucas' work in general). Came out the same year as TPM, too.

Also, I think you're battling against the stereotype of Kubrick being, as you put it, "cold, unfeeling, sterile, inhuman". I agree: that stereotype needs to be put to bed. But I want to say the same for Lucas -- unfairly, in my opinion, repeatedly dogged by the same accusations. In my reading, they both have a unique understanding of the human spirit. It isn't especially sagacious to compare the two (at least: not so overtly), but the very fact you do, in my view, says something about the enduring quality of Lucas' work.

And no, I don't especially feel like refuting the notion you closed on that the prequels sorely lack "humour and pathos". I'm not trying to be hostile. If you really want to understand Lucas' method of delivery, I recommend giving "THX-1138" a watch. It's kind of a skeleton key. I think you grossly underrate Lucas. Like Kubrick, he is a novel and fastidious filmmaker; or I wouldn't be here. Well, IMO, anyway.

Final note (I guess I will refute this): Lucas is not saying, "If you embrace your humanity, you will turn evil." That, to me, is a tragic misreading of the prequels. What he's saying is -- or what I get out of it is -- you must try and gain control of your emotions and get some sense of where you're coming from. Also: The prequels are a paean for a lack of roundedness in human affairs (look how the designs themselves become less organic and more pointed across the movies: as one reviewer perceptively implored, "Forget the physics of it, this is meant to be a subconscious mass of clues"); a plea -- albeit fantastically rendered -- for greater emotional intelligence to manifest in the world. The Jedi never seem to have heard of modern psychological theory; do they even know that thinking is rooted in the brain? In the prequels (perhaps this is the true masterstroke), Lucas colourfully depicts an unremittingly grey and ever-deepening nightmare. But yes, he does so with tremendous beauty and alacrity; which might be strange and unsettling, but can also be elevating and enriching (or it could even be said: inspired and inspiring).

Interesting epigram on the difference between the two men. Not sure I can really agree with it.

First of all, you are ignoring or doing down the fact that Star Wars is a mythological fable set as a rolling tapestry. Something bright and appealing, and broad and sweeping, and lacquered and funny, and saturated in colours, textures, shapes, and oozing design through every pore. Very nearly its own thing; totally unique in cinema. A cosmic-architectonic masterpiece.

Second, Star Wars is both satiric and visionary (to borrow an observation from the MSTRMND guy >> http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/did-george-lucas-change-cinema-with-star-wars-prequels/ ). Study the first film. Just consider the title music. It works as exciting adventure music and as overt satire. It is essentially "marching band music": the kind used by the British Empire to justify its colonialist zeal around the world. You can no more scrub this out of the series than you can the British accents of the characters and the British technicians who helped make it. The first film tells you what it is: a sort of post-modern adventure serial and "ravenous, animating form-glyph escape-satire" (this and other observations here >> http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/1268).

Third, Star Wars works better because it's abstract -- one or two (or more) stages removed from what it's depicting. After all, as Roger Ebert said, a film is not really about what it's about; it's about *how* it's about it. Having a visionary quality is very important in art. Art shouldn't be didactic. There's the old quip: if you want to send a message, use Western Union. Not that films don't contain messages. But they shouldn't be too overt; and message-sending shouldn't be the most notable thing about them.

Fourth, I'd just like to throw this one out there as an aside: What about Kershner/TESB? Often held up as the series exemplar, TESB is revered for being beautiful-looking and beautiful-sounding; while also hailed repeatedly for being "darker" and more "mature". So, if there's a beauty in horror, it isn't necessarily just Lucas that puts that quality out there. Nor even Kershner. Indeed, that is precisely my point: forget the filmmakers; it is other people, other fans -- the spectators -- that seem to admire the marriage of beauty and horror in Star Wars; provided, it seems, it is witty and picturesque enough. Perhaps it is still a terrible affliction; but it's one that doesn't start and end with George Lucas by any measure.

Fifth, I'd say there is constant sort of "hidden horror" at work in Star Wars; especially in the prequels. Consider something like the "ruminations"/staring sequence in ROTS. There's a sort of malign beauty to it. And the "Order 66" sequence that follows: it's harrowing yet has a sweeping litheness about it. Or the Dagobah cave scene: its basic "message" is immediate (remember what I said, though, about art and messages), yet on broader terms it remains haunting and elusive. And then there are all the thoughtful "motivational engrams" (forgive my slightly obscure neologisms) that Lucas put into the films -- documentary-style. Here I am referring to the grain of why people do what they do. Anakin and Luke and their embrace of violence is quite thoughtfully laid out across the films, in my opinion. You get these corpuscular reasons (midi-chlorians) that they do what they do existing in these hazy clouds (so you pick out from it what you can; but no equation can be formulated): from boredom, to PTSD-levels of anxiety, to being dismissed, marginalized, wanting to avenge, projecting frustrations onto others, uneasiness with ambiguity, etc. But this isn't literature; it's cinematic sensation. At heart, you could call Star Wars a visual meditation on enslavement and identity and the artefacts of action and inaction. Fractalized tone poetry.

So varied strands of beauty and horror are often brought together in cogent, stimulating, thoughtful ways in Star Wars, in my opinion. Ultimately, Star Wars is representational: things resemble and represent other things.

In Scorsese's case...

There can be a beauty in scumminess and grubbiness. For instance, sticking with "Taxi Driver", in the clip you posted, of Travis Bickle going on a night drive, the neon funk of mid-70s inner-city New York, and grime and street life in general, are eroticized. The same is true with the casting. De Niro appears opposite two attractive women (one underage) and his character is quite clearly attracted to them; even as he desires to be their chivalrous suitor (Shepherd) or protector (Foster). In part, what makes him so compelling is that his sexuality is bizarrely alien to him. There's a strange oscillation and ritualized evasion of discomfit he battles; losing himself in an imperceptible fog of self-loathing as his loneliness intensifies and he gradually slides off to nowhere and buries himself inside the carapace of an avenging angel. Though, much like Star Wars, "Taxi Driver" is a visual meditation above all else: there's no one answer to the enigma of Travis Bickle. And we are fascinated by his idiopathic "underworld" descent. There's a seductive tension throughout the film -- sometimes extremely palpable; almost unbearable -- and a tantalizing sense of discovery in every scene: a coarse, peripheral, and inexhaustible impulse of erotic intrigue. We are lasciviously interested in sex and violence (well, men, especially); as separate entities and especially when they're intertwined; and their diffuse yet febrile suggestion lights up the screen like nothing else. They are the great politically incorrect topics of our age; of every age.

You also undervalue comedy. "Goodfellas" and "Casino" are brutal, for instance; and maybe brutalizing. But they are also brutally dark and funny. Not to mention Scorsese's ebullient and hedonic (if also ironic) use of music. Similarly, as I said before, Star Wars is awesomely satiric; and far from a simple misty-eyed adventure story.

None of that is to erase fundamental differences between Scorsese and Lucas, though. Scorsese's movies cut closer to the bone. They're not "children's movies". And that essential fact, like Lucas' movies, is both a strength and a weakness.

I might offer, though it sounds rude, if you want what Scorsese offers, stick to Scorsese? At the end of the day, your problem sounds more with that Star Wars *isn't*, rather than what it is.



All this noise, of course, is............ JMO.

 

I will admit that the seps probably didn't want to bombard every planet in the republic. If for nothing else, they probably wanted to squeeze some money from the republic and destroying all their assets would not be helpful.
So yes they probably expected a few quick battles, to crush the Jedi and then make whatever demands they wanted.
So they didn't want a big war. And I think that one reason why the seps with Dooku signed on so quickly is that they expected an easy victory. They thought that they had an overwhelming superiority in numbers and the meager forces of the republic would be quickly crushed and then they could get anything they wanted from the senate.
But they did want war. A quick one sure but a war none the less.
And they were planning to build a DS!

So the "peace" they wanted was in essence, a swift attack to crush the republic's forces and then make whatever demands they wanted.
So the republic will be forced to agree to any terms at gun point.

@gezvader28

Except that the film doesn't really establish this.
The seps are already causing problems and they are making it hard for the Jedi to keep the peace.
According to Mace, if the talks with the seps fail, they could attack the republic.
So it doesn't seem to be as easy as "They just want to leave". They are apparently a military threat to the republic and they could attack if talks with them fail.
And the seps with Dooku have been building up a big army and they are seemingly looking forward to attacking a weak republic, crush the Jedi and then make demands at gunpoint.

The seps are painted as way more of the bad guys here.
They include the TF, which had no problem with attacking and invading a practically defenseless planet and kill a large number of people. All just for money.


@2K-D2

About Jango, no really sensible explanation exists. Except the obvious, "the writing is poor in places."
So we have to choose between a number of flawed explanations.
And to me, the least flawed or problematic explanation is that Jango used the dart by mere chance.
If you want a reason then suppose that the dart gun is more accurate over long distances.
And Jango didn't know beforehand that he had to kill Zam but he saw they she had gotten caught and was about to talk and he had to act quickly.
Perhaps not the smartes move but in a hurry, mistakes happen.

The alternative that Jango wanted to lure the Jedi to Kamino doesn't work because it has Jango place himself in danger for no reason and it involves a large number of variables that he can't control or know about.
Like, will the Jedi be able to trace the dart?
How many Jedi will come to Kamino?
Will I be able to escape?

And it doesn't involve Jango lying to Boba for no reason.

But this is exactly my point. Jango luring the Jedi to Kamino involves things he can't control and has way more variables.
While him using the dart by chance has no such problems. He used it because he has to make a quick choice, nothing more.

Not to me because Jango doesn't know he is in a SF/Fantasy film.
Jedi are not that hard to kill and Jango had no reason to think that Obi-Wan would survive some of the things he fired at him.

And as I've said, from Sidious point of view, the whole "the dart was a plan to lure Obi-Wan to Kamino etc." has way more variables and pitfalls as opposed to the simple," the Kamino people will contact the senate when the army is ready" plan.

Except you ignore that Jango's plan was made long before Obi-Wan showed up on Kamino.
Jango made a plan to lure the Jedi to Kamino by way of the dart.
At that point, Jango couldn't know that the Jedi would be able to ID the dart.
Nor would he know how many Jedi would be showing up on Kamino.
Of 4-5 of them showed up, he would have been screwed.

Also, the Jedi had some leads at that point, some Naboo miners.
If the Jedi failed to ID the dart, the most logical place they would go to would be Naboo.

And if Jango had the plan long before he shot Zam then he had apparently planned to shoot Zam and then to somehow dump the body outside the Jedi temple.
And then he somehow hoped that the Jedi would connect this random body with the attempt on Padme.

They guy Jango killed was a Jedi Master that sat on the council. So not a rookie.

And you forget that the Kamino people WILL contact the senate when the clone army is ready so no reason what so ever to lead the Jedi there. And plenty of reasons not to.

And since Dooku and Palpatine control both sides in the upcoming war, starting it is dead easy.
The Kamino people contacts the senate when the clone army is ready. Then Dooku makes a threat or attacks some republic world and the war starts. Simple!

Except that doesn't work because as far as the Jedi are concerned, Sifo-Dyas was killed before the army was ordered so he could not have done it. And therefore he wasn't involved in the deleting of the Kamino file either.

So, since only a Jedi could have deleted the file, a Jedi is involved.
And if not Sifo-Dyas then who?
Dooku is a possible suspect here. Made even more likely because the army template, Jango, works for said Dooku. This could make the Jedi very suspicious and make them question the clone army.
Something that is NOT the Sith's best interests. Unless they engage in subconscious self-sabotage.

The film makes the Jedi look clueless and moronic because they seemingly ignore a whole host of very fishy things with the clone army. Another flaw in my book.

Any explanation that involves assuming a dozen or so things in order for it to work isn't neither sensible nor plausible.
My explanation involves just one, Jango use of the dart gun was just chance.
Same like Qui-Gon choosing Watto's junk shop first or Leia running into to Wicket on Endor or Chewie smelling the meat in the trap. Just chance.

You have made up Jango's motivation of "I will pretend to try and kill Obi-Wan but really I am not."
Plus "I will keep this from my son for no reason what so ever."
And that isn't really supported by anything in the film.
And the only reason you made this up is that you want to argue that Jango was trying to lure Obi-Wan to Geonosis, which likewise isn't supported by the film.

And I've said more than once, the most sensible plan and the one that involves the least number of variables is this;
The Kamino people WILL contact the senate when the army is ready, no variable here.
Since Dooku control the seps he can make a threat or attack at any point he chooses.
So as soon as the Kamino people contacts the senate, Palpatine lets Dooku know this and then he makes a threat a few days later and the war starts.
This involves ZERO variables and is thus the most plausible plan.

They had no plan at all involving Jango leading the Jedi anywhere. His use of the dart was simple chance.
Palpatine is, as he often is, quick on his feet and adapts his plan to the circumstances.

Again, whole lot of assumptions here. This is why your version isn't the most plausible.

And to the person behind the army there is a lot LESS control when you involve the Jedi, darts etc and hope that they don't say the wrong thing and just pray that a dozen or so random events go your way.

That the Kamino people would eventually contact the republic is not in question, they WILL do so at some point. If for nothing else, the clones take up space and consume food. They want them gone.
If you doubt this, try and order something and then don't pick it up. If they have your number, odds are, they will contact you.

Also, the clone army was ordered ten years ago.
Did Palpatine have this plan made up back then? A hit on Padme, darts etc?
If not, don't you think that he had thought of a way to let this clone army be "found"?
I would think so and the simplest and most sensible plan is that the Kamino people will contact the senate once the army is ready.
That he didn't have any plan and thought "I'll just wing it when the time comes." doesn't fit a long term planner like Palpatine.

This is what I am talking about.
You make up that Jango is keeping Boba in the dark for no reason and when I question this, you hand wave away the objection.
This is bending events and also bending characters.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Samuel Vimes

I don't remember him saying that , he does say that there aren't enough jedi to protect the republic if it comes to war , but he and Kiadi Mundi also believe at this point that Dooku is a political idealist so clearly they're not saying he would be the one advocating war .

and the republic could attack the seps , and creating an army is a clear threat of that , by both sides .

yeah those are the guys that want war , the arms makers , corporations etc.
or do you really think that all those thousands of worlds that voted to leave know about Dooku's plans with the TF and the building of a DS?
No , they generally believe that the republic is failing them and want out , this sort of thing has happened throughout history , just happened in my country in fact .

you do know that the Sith master is leader of the republic right , and he's got lots of people in the republic on his side ?
so - the film paints the republic as just as bad in regard of corrupt / evil people promoting war , in fact its the republic that starts the war by invading Geonosis .

As I said - Padme makes the case in the film repeatedly that the Seps will feel threatened etc. she would know plenty about the various worlds leaving , she doesn't seem to think they want war either .

it's fear on both sides which is being exploited by the sith

I mean - I guess on a simple first viewing of the film you might think - oh Dooku and the sepratists are the villains , but you only have to analyse what happens in the film a bit to see that that's not the case .

and Dooku even says it - the senate is already controlled by the sith .

 

Palpatine says that his negotiations will not fail. And Mace says if they do, the negotiations that is, THEN there won't be enough Jedi to PROTECT the republic.

The meaning is quite clear, if talks with the seps fail, they could turn hostile and attack the republic.
Mace uses the word "PROTECT" which suggest that the republic will be attacked. Not that the republic will attack the seps.

No, the republic, as per the start of AotC, CAN'T attack the seps as the republic doesn't have an army.
They only force the republic has is the Jedi.
The seps on the other hand are apparently capable of attacking the republic and it sounds like they could do that if talks with them fail.

So before the army bill has passed, the republic can not attack the seps, nor do I hear anyone that suggest that they would. The seps on the other hand sound like they could attack the republic and it seems that this is even likely if talks with them fail.

So the seps are painted as more hostile than the republic.

What those 1000's of other worlds thought is irrelevant as that is never shown or established IN the films. What the film shows us of the seps are this, greedy, evil capitalists. If Lucas wanted to show that there was more to the seps then he should have shown this. He didn't so the seps are painted as little more than robber capitalists, greedy merchants and evil wall street business people.
"Banking Clan", "Commerce Guild", "Techno Union".
Not very subtle is it?
And these are the leaders of the seps, so they are representative of what the seps are.
They seps have demands but what those are is never said.

And Dooku said that with the support of the TF, then more worlds would join his cause.
So those world would go "Oh look, the greedy, evil TF are supporting the seps. Let's join them!"
Doesn't make them sound like nice people in my ears.

The galaxy would know what the TF did. That they attacked a weak world, Naboo, and killed some of the people there. So they abused their power quite considerably. They acted like bullies and thugs.
If some systems are eager to join a cause supported by said TF, then I don't think they are very noble or good.

A Sith is also leading the seps.
And unlike the republic, where there are some good people, the seps are shown to be nothing but villains.
You have the TF, the bad guys from TPM.
And Nute talked openly about murdering Padme, a known advocate of peace and the other seps didn't bat an eye. So they were totally cool with murder.
You have the Geonosians, who have a very cruel justice system, where people are thrown down to be devoured by monsters. Much like Jabba.

Palpatine fooled a lot of people in the republic and they didn't see what his goal was.
Dooku told the seps leaders that his plan was to attack a weak and mostly defenseless republic and they were all for that.
He played them too but they were still onboard with an evil plan.

Also, the seps had tried to murder a republic senator and had killed republic citizens.
If a foreign power tried to assassinate a US senator, I would imagine the US would take a dim view of that.
Also the seps had built up a big army with the clear goal of attacking the army less republic and enforce their demands at gunpoint.

Had the Jedi been less stupid on Geonosis, they could have captured or killed Dooku. Thus ending the war before it started.

Padme was clearly ignorant of what the seps leaders really wanted or the big army they had built up.
The crawl mentions hundreds of worlds. Dooku talks of thousands. And worlds that will join because their big army and the support of people like the TF.

The sep leaders with Dooku were not threatened by the republic, they wanted to attack and enforce demands on a weak republic.

Both sides were used yes, but one side is painted as flawed but overall good, the republic, while the other is painted as simple bad guys, the seps.
The OT is said to be simple good vs evil. The PT has just as clear evil, the sith, the seps, the TF.
It is just that many of the bad guys, the seps, the TF, don't know that they are being used.
They are still shown as little more than bad guys.

In TFA, Han says that Snoke is using Kylo. That doesn't make Kylo not a villain or a bad guy.

[/QUOTE]

Except it is the case.
The seps are painted as little more than bad guys. Evil, greedy capitalists. Cowardly, murderers.
They have few if any redeeming features, the few named people we see among them, Dooku, Nute, Griev, are all bad guys. If Lucas wanted to show that they were good people on both sides he failed.
I know that the RotS crawl tries to make this point but that is TELLING, not SHOWING and another problem I have with these films.

If he wanted to show that both sides had a point and there were good people on both sides, SHOW that.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Only one note: the geonosians wanted to build the Death Star, not the Separatist alliance. When Dooku and the Geonosian (may be) general discussed the plans of the Death Star, they were alone.

By the way, Geonosis is very interesting planet. Its cunning, doble-faced nature can be seen in every shot there. In the surface it looks abandoned, in the indergrounds is full of life. At first sight the locals seem to be primitive: just look what type of executions they have: in a ancient, almost barbaric style; at the same time they build a high technology weapons and have droid factories; etc., etc. We even discussed in the thread about the historical references of PT to which real world country/region could be compared Geonosis, but still we couldn‘t decide, yet there are enough real world examples about such societies... Another example of the beauty of the prequels.

 

Or some place public enough that it would cause a commotion and attract the attention of the Jedi. Or leave an anonymous message for the Jedi to come investigate a body at x location.

More like a datacard with the large sum of money that would be easily linked to an assassination and the weapon that was used to carry out said execution.

Jango didn't want to attract any attention to himself, which is why he brought in an assassin that he knew and let that person take the fall. Think of "The Manchurian Candidate", where after the assassination would take place, said assassin would kill themselves in order to cover the trail.

RAYMOND SHAW: "What will happen to him?"

ELLIE SHAW: "The assassin always dies."

Besides, Jango is a bounty hunter and Zam is an assassin.

But he takes advantage only after the fact. Anakin has an attachment. So for him, he doesn't need another until he realizes that he does.

Except Spielberg and the others were encouraging Lucas to make the films himself, rather than let someone else direct. And because he had fun doing TPM, that's why he decided to direct the other two films. In the case of Indy, it was more Spielberg's film than his, which he said quite a few times in the early 80's. So he had no issue letting him be in charge.

 

Instead of replying to the entire posts, I think some core things should be established:

Which is what I said, obviously...

... I had a diferent take on which explanation would be the least flawed one.

Okay, let's break it down again:
1) Palpatine's plan
2) Jango's plan/reactions

1a) Palpatine having intended the outcome, is an end twist.
The events appeared chaotic, until it was "revealed" that it had been all planned.

1b) Premise of the argument: Palpatine planned/foresaw the events the way they occurred
Not a necessary premise - it's based on the tone of the final scene and what it seems to convey, but it's not certain.

It could've also been a... whatever they call a "gambit" where you create a tense situation and then start throwing things at the wall whichever sticks.
Part of the plot could've been planned, and another part chaotic etc.

2)+1b) However... under the premise that the whole plot was planned, the issue is, how many variables there are for the masterminds.

Jango chaotic + Jedi chaotic = more variables.
Jango controlled + Jedi chaotic = less variables.

2)+1a) A twist means, the things you saw weren't what they seemed.
In this case, chaotic events and simple motivations, were actually controlled events and pretend motivations.

If you write a twist without carefully making sure everything adds up, and the seemingly chaotic events also make sense as controlled events in retrospect - well, then they likely won't make sense as controlled events as well.

So... if the twist is that Jango was in on it, then his actions seemed like reactions, but were later revealed to have been part of the plan.
Because the story wasn't carefully written, that means those chaotic reactions don't make as much sense in light of the revealed additional info.


However... if he isn't part of the twist, in that direct sense, then the logic of his actions remains intact, but because of 2+1b), Palpatine's plan gains lots of more variables and it becomes even more absurd for him to have planned it all.




Obvious conclusion that didn't require all the ^^))
You make sense of Palpatine's plan (under premise 1a)), by sacrificing some sense in Jango's side of things.
If you leave Jango chaotic and sensible, Palpatine's plan makes less sense.





So with Jango, the illogicalities end up being rather local and tactical - what if Zam crashed? What if moar Jedi? What if the bomb killed Ob1?

With Palpatine, they're GAPING - how could he have expected Jango to have decided to hire assassin, then panic and shoot her, then fly back to Kamino, and do all those other unpredictable things?

Ergo - assuming Jango was in on it, is the lesser evil.



Though, perhaps, assuming Jango was being given "orders" to steer him into the right direction, but he wasn't aware of luring anyone, is perhaps more reasonable than either.

It's also absurd to assume that no back-up plans existed should someone slip in the shower - the idea is merely that what happened in the movie, was the Plan A, that worked out.

Do I have to explain why why this is absurd?


Luke didn't know he was in a SF/Fantasy film, so he wouldn't have attempted to get into shootouts since he'd know he'd lose - because he doesn't "know" that the stormtroopers turn into hapless dorks when facing the main heroes?


The simple argument is, he can sneak around the military enemy base and shoot up soldiers with an easygoing attitude, because genre.
Your rebuttal is, he doesn't know he's in a genre movie, so he should've expected realism and hence not having a chance.

No.

Okay, where does this whole dump Zam's body outside temple thing come from?

The idea is, Zam is told to kill Padme, Palpatine knows she's being watched and expects a failure and capture - due to how skilled the Jedi are.
Jango is supposed to watch over it all, and then whack Zam when she's captured.

Oh... he didn't have a talking role did he

Okay, so he dispatches him quickly and had difficulties with Obiwan, that means he was holding back?
Of course, Obiwan is a main character so he's automatically tougher... that's also part of the "genre".... hm

I don't think anyone ever said that - however, with Jango being there and in cahoots with the villains, I'm sure he could've told them to make contact.

If they were supposed to contact the republic as soon as the army was ready, that would've been a liability - it could've been too early, the republic would've had an official army, and the separatists couldn't just "threaten".

Well, I'm sure they could've started the was some slightly other way.

They only start ignoring it in the final act - they were very suspicious prior to that.

Palpatine and Dooku having planned all the events the way they happened, with Jango as a chaotic element, requires the most assumptions.

Your Windu theory comes out of nowhere.
There's no reason for it to exist, it's based on nothing.


The Jango theory comes out of the need to reduce the variables in Palpatine's plan (assuming it's a plan in the first place), at the expense of making Jango a planner with some variables on his own.

It's also based on one short scene that implies he's way in the inner circle, rather than just a hired gun (i.e. where he kills the master rookie).

I've already revoked my original thesis that it's the most plausible - what I'm arguing now is that it's the most plausible under the premise that the movie's plot had been planned by Palpatine in that form.

There is some dramatic justification for this premise, but it's not the most logical reading of the plot - the most logical being that:
a) He created the tensions and the secret arms race, and the rest was throwing things at the board whichever stuck - so, assassination, investigation, beehive rattled, war.
Without the investigation, people might have gotten angry and escalated the tensions in some other form.

The plan being for the Republic to find out and attack preemptively - among other things, leading to the emergency powers, at that moment.

b) It's as you said, Separatists would attack when he wanted, Kamino would reveal the army when he wanted - and this was some spontaneous development that ultimately led to the same outcome anyway.


Problem is, a) makes the movie kind of a bit pointless, and b) even more pointless.
What would you rather watch, a conspiracy thriller in which you try to investigate some hidden danger, unaware that you're springing the mastermind's trap and causing the danger to explode as a result - or, one of the many random plans / a consequence-less aberration from some other original plan by said mastermind?



Conclusion lol:

You go with the "Palpatine planned this plot" premise to justify the film dramatically (well, it implies this itself, so also to follow what's conveyed in the narrative) - which results in a cluster F of variables.

You go with "Jango was in on it" to reduce the cluster F of variables significantly (and based on another, weaker implication) - at the price of forcibly reintepreting this secondary villain's actions and stretching a bit of lahgic.


That's the picture here.

With a good enough reason ^^ to go with the assumption in the first place, plausible assumptions like "he didn't tell his kid the most top secret conspiracy, yet" are acceptable.

Bending events? Well, that's what a TWIST does, it retroactively bends characters and events - only question is how well, which, in this case, not that well.

This is also the type of twist which leave open which of the previously shown elements were affected by the twist to what extent - it turns out to have been a conspiracy, but which event was planned, and which one was as chaotic as it appeared? Was that shady character part of the conspiracy, just used as a pawn, or just chaotic and shady?

If you go with "shady character was in on it", that bends the shady character.
If you go with "he wasn't", that creates the question how he ended up doing what served the masterplan.



PS: was this too longwinded? subject's giving me headaches

PPS:
This seriously should be broken into several new threads.
-Jango/Clones lahgic analysis
-camera stylization
-"disgusting(!) glorification of domestic violence - or is domestic violence great"?
-some other topics I think

Things are causing me headaches, topics all over the place.

 

Oh, I agree that Kubrick hasn’t solved the problem, and I agree that that’s the central question that CLOCKWORK addresses. One of the things I admire about the film is that it never pretends to have an answer to that question. Instead, as I see it, Kubrick is trying to get the audience to consider the problem, encourage them to discuss it, and perhaps hope that somebody can come up with a solution.

I think Alex has his fair share of sympathetic moments, although I agree that, on the whole, he’s a pretty reprehensible person. I like how Kubrick put it:

Kubrick also, on more than one occasion, said that Alex “represents man in his natural state”, which is a pretty interesting idea, I think.

Oh, don’t think that Kubrick’s use of irony and contradictions throughout his career has escaped my attention. “Gentleman, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!” is arguably the most blunt and famous example.

Kubrick’s films are very thought-provoking, and I apologize if you think I’m trying to reduce his work to the level of a puzzle. “There, I’ve put all the pieces together and solved it!” No. I’m simply addressing and attempting to verbalize my thoughts on what the film was attempting to communicate and how it communicated that.

Oh, there’s no doubt that CLOCKWORK is a very loud and darkly funny film. I more so wanted combat the notion that it’s some ugly, hateful film, therefore bad. It’s definitely very gaudy and outrageous, as you put it, and sharply satirical, but I’ve never found it to be hateful or misanthropic.

As for EYES WIDE SHUT? I think it’s an underrated masterpiece. I’ve never found it to be cold and sterile, although it’s certainly moody and abstract (parts of it almost have a David Lynch feel to them, which shouldn’t be surprising since Kubrick was a huge fan). I don’t necessarily revisit it as often as I revisit DR. STRANGELOVE or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but it’s definitely compelling, and explores some truly interesting ideas. I think it goes back to a theme that deeply fascinated Kubrick throughout his career- dehumanization. That orgy scene has to be one of the creepiest and least erotic scenes I’ve ever seen in any movie. There’s no emotion to it, no passion, no intimacy, just some creepy, ritualistic and unfeeling gratification. Far from embracing the coldness and inhumanity of such a setup, I see EYES WIDE SHUT as a commentary on the depersonalization and dehumanization of meaningless sex. To compare EYES WIDE SHUT to the prequel trilogy, I find that Kubrick is far more of a humanist and Lucas is far more of a misanthrope. Kubrick dedicates an entire movie to despairing over the lack of human connection and attachment, whereas Lucas embraces the very things that Kubrick found incredibly depressing (and Lucas himself once did, as well, if you watch THX 1138). Hell, I think I remember reading an interview with Lucas where he basically said that Jedi were supposed to engage in depersonalized sex, and I immediately envisioned the orgy from EYES WIDE SHUT when I read that.

Obviously, I’m a huge Kubrick fan, and I could spend hours and hours analyzing all of his works and what they mean to me. Just for the record, my favorites of his are DR. STRANGELOVE, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and EYES WIDE SHUT.

You’re damn right I’m battling against that stereotype. I’ve spent about 25 years battling against it.

I’ve seen it, and I have to admit that, while it’s visually striking and I admire its ambition, I don’t find it to be very compelling. It’s a very cold austere film, and really does feel like imitation Kubrick more than anything else, albeit without the wit, irony, and psychological depth. For me, THX 1138 actually is a very cold and inhuman film (that may be part of the point, though, since, like CLOCKWORK and EYES WIDE, it’s definitely a commentary on the dehumanization of society). Although I agree with you on one point. It is the key to understanding much of Lucas’s subsequent work.

So he’s basically saying you need to be a mature adult? Great, George. Not sure I needed an entire film trilogy to convey that message to me.

Let me clarify what I meant by that, since I really think it came across quite badly. I’m not so much saying that a film about ugly subjects needs to have grimy, ugly, gritty, Scorsese-esque cinematography. What I object to is the idea of holding up the relationship between Anakin Skywalker and Natalie Portman as this beautiful, romantic, tragic story when it’s really quite ugly and depressing. Look at BLUE VELVET as a point of comparison. Someone like David Lynch (who was considered for RETURN OF THE JEDI) does a fantastic job of contrasting the outer beauty and surface beauty of Lumberton USA with the internal ugliness of the world that Frank Booth inhabits. And there’s also a haunting beauty and power to some of the scenes in that movie (“Candy-Colored Clown”, anyone?). There’s no attempt to glorify or romanticize the way that Frank treats Dorothy Vallens throughout the film. I don’t ask for grimy cinematography, just an acknowledgment of ugliness. And I don’t deny that films like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, BLUE VELVET, and GOODFELLAS have a strand of dark comedy running through them, as well as an energetic vibrance (for CLOCKWORK and GOODFELLAS) and ethereal beauty (BLUE VELVET). But there’s still an acknowledgment.

Ironically, you mentioned Roger Ebert (whom I absolutely adore, except in this one case) and guess who went into a huge moralistic tizzy over BLUE VELVET?

But as for Roger’s statement that a work of art is about how it’s about it and not what it’s about, I agree completely. The truth is I actually think the STAR WARS prequels have a pretty solid plotline, at least in a broad, general sense. A Republic becomes a fascist Empire. A young, idealistic hero tragically turns to evil. You have a Littlefinger-esque figure secretly manipulating everything to his own advantage in order to amass greater power. 99% of my problems with the prequel films have to do with execution. I mean, let me put it this way. It’s supposed to be this grand epic larger-than-life tragedy, yet it feels very cold and very distant. The characters are mostly painted in very broad strokes. Liam Neeson is wise mentor. Natalie Portman is idealistic young Senator. Anakin Skywalker is whiny petulant mass murdering brat. They never feel quite human or fully-rounded. The problem isn’t with the basic story itself, but all the little decisions that went into telling the story that just make it very…boring and sterile. I really think Roger summed up the problems of these movies best in his review of ATTACK OF THE CLONES:

I think he nailed it. It’s pretty boring.

 

I'm sure that you or I can find any number of these "gaps" that you want in any film ever so the answer is yes.

The OT is packed with them to the brim if you want to look for them and the PT actually fills a ton of them so that the PT would have it's own set is hardly surprising as all films have them.

For whatever reason people decide to overlook them at certain points.

He isn't? Hmmm.

That's odd as I see that no problem and it's clearly established earlier in the movie.

 

Name one. I’m serious. Name one legitimate plot hole from the original trilogy that the prequels fix.

 

OT has exponentially less, though this is to a large degree due to the plot being simpler and hence less things to keep track of.

He isn't? Hmmm.

That's odd as I see that no problem and it's clearly established earlier in the movie.[/quote]

That's not even a sentence

No he's not - this has been discussed already, he's told to follow orders instead of reinterpreting them.

The only established thing is that he's being underestimated - you can make conclusions from that, such as that if you can lift 100, and your trainer says lol no you can only lift 80, then you can't start training to lift 110... but important plot points being left to that kind of guesswoek is kind of nay.


Kuro

How again?

Also, do you realize that "tragic" doesn't contradict "ugly and depressing"?

Like, if Padme died in childbirth, but vomited a lot in the process, that would be totally gross

I'm sure you meant "contrast", because they have nothing in common

Internal ugliness of the world, or hidden underbelly of the nice town, sure - where's the Frank Booth in SW?

Beeeeeecause he's a crazy maniac who's un-eared her husband and does things to her and stuff?

Acknowledgement =/= making stuff up.

He does that often enough.
Inconsistently, too.

"Distant" is an apt description for lots of TPM - "cold", not so much. "Laconic" fits well.

That movie's not a grand tragedy, though.

What is "quite human".

These two adjectives are probably well applied to.... I don't know, a couple scenes from AOTC I think.

Depends on what you mean by "sterile", though - people use it negatively all the time, but they actually like clean, sterile rooms a lot.
So, what are you referring to, the posh accents or what?

Also, what does any of this have to do with Blue Velvet?

 

edit expired

There's plenty tho?

Alright what we're looking at here is selective memory.

-chancellor's office: V
It's quite dry (and the scenery lacks atmosphere), however, the dialogue does convey an amount of foreboding/worry, and is presented in a dramatic (though not "intense") fashion.

As with all the following comparable scenes, they don't look like "lawyers", they talk like nobles/knigts/priests in a fantasy court setting - so, at least a step closer to "romantic fantasy", eh?

-Padme comes in V/X
Talks with enthusiasm/impatience about who just tried to blow her up - a bit more personal, though brief.

-Jedi in elevator X
Friendly banter, and a bit of petulance/sarcasm - subject is nervousness etc.

-"briefing" X/V
Mixture of boring exposition, and intense arguing.
Scene completely lacks atmosphere, the arguing is generally perceived as grating - but then, say that, instead of lawyers

Anakin, in this movie (unlike the next one), acts like a modern American jock douchebag, and doesn't match a "romantic fantasy" tone for most of the time.

The scene also contains an awkward "cute" moment at the beginning, I'm gonna leave out the love story though - obviously it's an entirely different animal than "lawyer exposition", and isn't hated for that either.

-assassination anticipation XXXXXXXXXX
No.

-Council debriefing: VVVVVV
Boring phoned in "you go here he goes there" scene.

-Palpatine might be evil: X
Very elevated, of personal/spiritual nature, but, as such, very formulaic dialogue.

-the fake background scene: XX(v)
Discuss personal (though also professional) things in a generally expressive fashion - particularly on Yoda's part.
Obiwan's a bit dry. Mace ends the scene with the most phoned in line in history, it's awful.

-clothes packing: X
Some melodrama, some cringe ranting, Portman acts annoyed really well.

-Natalie Portman and Rose Byrne: X
inspires fantasies
/approve

-Dexter: X
no

-library: X
nah

-kids: X
Stupid lisping kids, silly Yoda = bad.
Aside from that, sense of mystery/wonder, in the dialogue too.

-first half of Jamilia scene: VVVV
Might be the worst exposition scene, Sio Bibble gets in a nice as you know line.

Obviously "courtly" in tone.


Alright, so now there's gonna be an exciting romance on Naboo, and Obiwan's off talking to weird aliens.

Do I need to explain how none of those Lama Su dialogues or the Jango sparring even remotely fit the description of "dry exposition with lawyers"?
I think not.


Ebert remembered 3 dialogue scenes from the 1st hour of Clones and thought the whole 1st hour was like that.
lol

Well, the 3 scenes in the 1st hour, that is

Obiwan and the other Jedi/politicians are formal because it's a stylized aristocratic society/culture/environment, by design.

Stop saying "strange and stiff", just recognize the setting and go from there.

Unique individual? Hm - is Obiwan anything like Windu? Or Padme? Is Palpatine anything like them?
It's almost as if you could be stoic and formal and still expressive and unique personalities.

But then I'm sure Ebert, while writing the article, had momentarily forgotten about every sarcastic quip or badass threat as he was only remembering the "exposition scenes", so....


Anakin does some of that, though a lot of the time he's anything but, coming off like an abrasive modern college kid - not necessarily for the better. More like Jar Jar, actually.

How could he have missed that lol

.

Well I did leave out the love scenes.

Or remembering.

That has nothing to do with this movie, save for... wait, how many such scenes are there in the 2nd half?

I think the one political one (it's a bit moodier though), and "it is done then" for 2 seconds - so, yea, 4 scenes without wit, poetry, imagination and music in 2 hours, so the Euros could dub easier... lol


Wait, did the cliched lovebird lines count as poetic or not? Ah who cares.

Would you have remembered that?

Is there a correlation between how lifeless the acting and how much greenscreen?

Oh wait no there isn't.

There's a difference between "formal" and "factual" - formality in an office or military setting can be dry and factual, formality in a fantasy posh one tends to be elegant and "musical" at least in a rudimentary sense.

Brief glimpse of awareness?

By other times he means the 4-6 scenes in the movie.




Alright, yea, kind of an eh review - captures two of the "lame" aspects of this movie, so not entirely off the mark.

 

It depends on what’s being portrayed as tragic. If it’s being portrayed as tragic that she ever got involved with such a creep, that’d be fine. However, if we’re supposed to believe that this was some “true love for ages tragically cut short”, then that’s not fine.

Beeeeeecause he's a crazy maniac who's un-eared her husband and does things to her and stuff?[/quote] And Anakin is a crazy maniac who murders children on a regular basis and whines that it’s all Obi-Wan’s fault for not showing him the quick and easy path to becoming all-powerful. But for some idiotic, incomprehensible reason, we’re supposed to view him as a tragic hero, rather than as the evil, crazy person that he is.

The prequel arc is supposed to be tragic. A young idealistic man tragically becomes evil as a Republic degenerates into a fascist Empire. Anakin could be Macbeth, Charles Foster Kane, Michael Corleone or even Harvey Dent. All those scenes with Anakin and his mom, where he’s separated from her, and taken away from a bad environment, raised in a life of luxury by people he resents because he views them as cold and uncaring? Here’s what Lucas was going for.



Now I could point to how Welles was able to convey far more in 4 minutes than Lucas conveyed in 2+ hours, but there’s the crux of it. And CITIZEN KANE is definitely told as a grand American tragedy. Yet somehow, I feel far more when Charles Foster Kane and Jedediah Leland grow estranged than when Obi-Wan and Anakin have their battle of the heroes. Maybe it’s because when we first saw Kane and Leland, they were actually portrayed as friends, unlike Obi-Wan and Anakin, who already seemed to hate each other in CLONES. The relationship between Obi-Wan and Anakin, if anything, felt closer to Kane’s relationship with Walter P. Thatcher, and I have to admit that seeing Kane and Thatcher become enemies didn’t really feel tragic to me.

Emotionally sterile. For the most part, the characters might as well all be Data from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION. No, I take that back. Even Data felt more vibrant than these guys. They seem very flat and monotone.

And don’t tell me that it’s because they’re all a bunch of dignified, regal characters. Captain Jean-Luc Picard, also from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, is a dignified and regal character, yet he still seems like a person, not some bland robot (and I say this as a staunch Kirk guy). Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES can be dignified and regal, but he never struck me as emotionless or boring. Even Alec Guinness in the original conveyed genuine class without being boring. Picard, Tywin, and old Obi-Wan never came across as flat.

When you’ve won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism, then you can tell me how Roger Ebert is an idiot and how you know so much more about film than he does.

 

Well I guess some people are only good at complaining over and over again without any ending...

One of the things that complaining and criticisms over movies, which are now more than 10 years old, do reveal is that many people here wanted full control over the movies instead of Lucas... Which is quite ironic when you reproach at the same time the man for having "too much control" over his creations, since it's normal because it was his own work... Not the fans' work...

 

1a) Anakin/Padme from 2 and Anakin/Padme from 3 don't take place in the same continuity, or are the same pair of characters - effectively, that is, no idea about the stated or conscious intentions.

Treating them as one, in a critique, is a recipe for disaster.


1b) Regular children killer? What?
The only time he killed children before turning evil, were bunch of orc children and don't count.

The second time she dumped him for it.



2) That doesn't even scene and subplot is tragic, or, in fact, the first two movies are - except being set-ups for one.

Yea, so Anakin parts with his mother... that's a "tragic" scene, or sad at any rate, so... is it distant and cold or what? lol

Lawl - okay, "vibrant" or whatever, Data clearly had "robotic" mannerisms.
This comparison is farcical.

The ****bot from the RLM skits is even more robotic, and even more vibrant than Data. I guess you can be really over the top and still robotic? This is a bunch of schlock.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

You just cited the Roger Ebert review in which he says the dialogue scenes from AOTC are dry information dumps (except for the cliched romance stuff), even though that only applies to 4-5 scenes in the entire movie.
I'd say your memories of who sounded robotic or not, aren't reliable.

No one in SW sounds like a "bland robot", so whatever negative comparison there might be to Picard, gets drowned in nonsense.

What "strikes" you as emotionless and boring, doesn't appear to be reliable.

Again, any valid comparison in which a... comparable GoT or TNG character can be determined as more expressive than a PT one, that could be made, gets drowned and invalidated by this type of tone deaf nonsense.

Also, comparing similar characters would seem like a more sensible way to go - both Picard and Tywin are pompous authority figures with booming, deep voices.
There are no such here.

Some more apt comparisons:
beard Riker = beard Ob1 (accounting for affected accent)
EpI Ob1 = Ewan McGregor (lol)
Troi = rots Padme (Troi's not always at the zenith btw)
Shae or Talisa would be two other obvious comparisons.
authority Daenerys = Amidala (accouning for the "mask")
grim hippie guy / Elrond = Mace (not Tyrell)
Pycelle = Bibble (surface level)
S4 Raven = Ki-Adi Mundi

Also, consider that, with some exceptions like Tywin, GoT is a different animal and often shows those characters outside of their "formal" contexts - TNG to a lesser extent, and SW to a lesser extent (being a "straight" fantasy, as opposed to GoT that is part realism, and TNG that goes for a sterile future feel, apparently, but still intends to portray real people and not elevated fantasy archetypes).

There was no formality to that character, it was an entirely different animal - at most, when interacting with Vader.
Ghost Obiwan is an entirely different entity, however - a lot closer to PT, but without that formal/ritualized element to it.

He wasn't someone who was sitting in a "council", or surrounded by posh people - the stoicism was pure spiritual detachment, where here there's an added element of social code and culture.

The only characters following a stoic social code in the OT (not counting military), were Vader and the Emperor, who, as ham villains, obviously can't be compared to anyone other than the ham villains from the newer movies.

 

And Anakin is a crazy maniac who murders children on a regular basis and whines that it’s all Obi-Wan’s fault for not showing him the quick and easy path to becoming all-powerful. But for some idiotic, incomprehensible reason, we’re supposed to view him as a tragic hero, rather than as the evil, crazy person that he is. The prequel arc is supposed to be tragic. A young idealistic man tragically becomes evil as a Republic degenerates into a fascist Empire. Anakin could be Macbeth, Charles Foster Kane, Michael Corleone or even Harvey Dent. All those scenes with Anakin and his mom, where he’s separated from her, and taken away from a bad environment, raised in a life of luxury by people he resents because he views them as cold and uncaring? Here’s what Lucas was going for.



Now I could point to how Welles was able to convey far more in 4 minutes than Lucas conveyed in 2+ hours, but there’s the crux of it. And CITIZEN KANE is definitely told as a grand American tragedy. Yet somehow, I feel far more when Charles Foster Kane and Jedediah Leland grow estranged than when Obi-Wan and Anakin have their battle of the heroes. Maybe it’s because when we first saw Kane and Leland, they were actually portrayed as friends, unlike Obi-Wan and Anakin, who already seemed to hate each other in CLONES. The relationship between Obi-Wan and Anakin, if anything, felt closer to Kane’s relationship with Walter P. Thatcher, and I have to admit that seeing Kane and Thatcher become enemies didn’t really feel tragic to me. Emotionally sterile. For the most part, the characters might as well all be Data from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION. No, I take that back. Even Data felt more vibrant than these guys. They seem very flat and monotone.

And don’t tell me that it’s because they’re all a bunch of dignified, regal characters. Captain Jean-Luc Picard, also from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, is a dignified and regal character, yet he still seems like a person, not some bland robot (and I say this as a staunch Kirk guy). Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES can be dignified and regal, but he never struck me as emotionless or boring. Even Alec Guinness in the original conveyed genuine class without being boring. Picard, Tywin, and old Obi-Wan never came across as flat. When you’ve won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism, then you can tell me how Roger Ebert is an idiot and how you know so much more about film than he does.[/quote]

Why should he take his opinion as based fact???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There seems to be a disconnect between people who want to diiscuss the quality of these movies, and comments like "wh are you spending all this time hating after 15 yeaar and disrespecting Lucas - it's just your opinion".


Seems like compartmentalizing the PT sub somehow, if not into sub-subs then at least different threads with different angles, would be a good idea.

I took this as a kind of "thunderdome" thread for that, though looking at the OP it might've been hijacked in that direction?

 

Hey, I'm the first to admit my version of the PT would have been horrible. I don't want to control GL at all, but I would have preferred it, if he had hired a great screenwriter and director to get some truly memorable performances, because I do believe greatness is hidden under the surface.

 

There seems to be a disconnect between people who want to diiscuss the quality of these movies, and comments like "wh are you spending all this time hating after 15 yeaar and disrespecting Lucas - it's just your opinion".


Seems like compartmenalizing the PT sub somehow, if not into sub-subs then at least different threads with different angles, would be a good idea.[/quote]

Digga can hate on the movies all he wants.

I'm just asking why he assumes that because you see differently than Roger, you think of him as a complete idiot and have to take his outlook as fact because he is "high profile"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Where did he say I thought of him as a complete idiot or should have to take his outlook due to profile?

 

Agreed & Lucas knew that & he tried to get someone else to direct it.

Consider these quotes from him prior to the PT:

"I'm not having fun. I smile a lot because if I don't everyone gets depressed. But I'd rather be home in bed watching television. I'm only doing this because I started it and now I have to finish it. The next trilogy will be all someone else". - During production of RotJ. http://partners.nytimes.com/library/film/071182empire-secrecy.html

“I’ve retired from directing,” Lucas says [in a memo regarding finding a director for Empire]. “If I directed Empire then I’d have to direct the next one and the next for the rest of my life. I’ve never really liked directing. I became a director because I didn’t like directors telling me how to edit, and I became a writer because I had to write something in order to be able to direct something. So I did everything out of necessity, but what I really like is editing.” http://thisisanadventure.com/2011/02/george-lucas-reconsidered/

Here we have his great friend John Milius describing how much he dislikes directing.

Then of course we know about his efforts to get another director to take on TPM: http://collider.com/star-wars-episode-1-ron-howard-steven-spielberg-robert-zemeckis/

Fact is TPM was his first directorial work since 1977. He retired from directing for 22 years. Seems he really didn't want to ever do it again. There were a handful of directors he knew & trusted & they all turned him down for Ep I.