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

2K-D2, I can see that further discussion with you is going nowhere. Please feel free to take your condescension elsewhere, as I really am not interested in talking with someone who goes on about how he understands film so much better than Roger Ebert, aka the first person ever to win a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism. At least when I go after Lucas, I’m going after work that received Razzie nominations for Worst Picture, Worst Director and Worst Screenplay (ATTACK OF THE CLONES actually won Worst Screenplay).

 

Is this a joke? You're resorting to "he won a prize"? That's the extent of your substance?


Alright then lol

 

Wow, Cryo as always you find the poetry and beauty even in paradoxically ugly-looking things.
But I was talking about mich simpler things showed in PT: astonishing aestetics (other users already post enough beautiful shots and as I‘m on the phone now, I‘ll use that fact) and beauty in character‘s souls. A difference from Kuro who obviously feel comfortable only when the character is defined for good as bad/good I like the dynamics of the prequel characters. This is Anakin‘s story and the story about his change, but all the characters change and with a reason. Anyway what Lucas show and ironically, he shows that in OT also is that in the darkest, horrifing places there is a drop of light. It is enough to defeat the darkness, to bring hope. That beacon was Padme in PT and her son in OT and of course Anakin in the Saga who could come back as the prodigal son. The difference between Lucas and Scorsese is here, for example, Scorsese almost never bothers about that. Except in Taxi Driver: to a several degree, but again his addiction to the violence wins, as Travis is justified for this because indeed as beeing psychotic and violent he saved the little girl (I forgot the name of Jodie Foster‘s character‘s here).

Kuro: Lucas doesn‘t glorify the violence or the ugliness or the inmorality. Vader never said: “come to the Dark Side, my son, because is fun! And we have cookies!“. Nor he turned to the Dark side himself because it was DA cool thing to do (Should I mention the beginning of Goodfellas where one of the boys share the dream of his life, to be a gangster???).
So, I won‘t like Scorsese not because I don‘t know his films, or because I don‘t understand his style but indeed because I do. What I try to do is to understand what the director is saying in his/her movie, and not to correct him because I see the things in a different way. If I see them in a different way, I just dislike the movie, is simple. I would never like the machist, belittling attitude that Scorsese show towards women in his movies. They always look like accessoire, not like individuals there. And is not the problem that the movie is centered on the men. As in Departed, where the psychiatrist leave the Matt Deamon‘s character but we never understand a particular things about her (except her fear of commitment,of course), she look flat.
We don‘t know actually who is she, why on Earth she chooses first Deamon then diCaprio, what are her motivativations about everything. And you said by yourself that you don‘t understand Padme‘s choice because she is moral and has principles, i.e. even you who don‘t approve her choice, know what kind of person is Padme. So obviously Lucas succeed to show it even to viewers, who don‘t like the movies.
(P.S. PiettsHat: I like very much Lawrence of Arabia, I just mentioned it for a specific reason).
About the violence: I mentiones Apocalypse now as movie where the violence and the madness should worrify and reject, not attract. I mentioned it as movie where the pace looks as induced by drug hallucinations, because it has to show the madness of war. But maybe I should mention Platoon as example of a violent film that reject violence. What is fascinating in this movie is that it is a military movie that shows the “enemy“ in a brief last shot in the end. By showing some brutal things and by completely skip others (the enemy) Stone shows the monstrous face of the war, the real enemy. The is no beauty there, only horror and nightmares.

What I see about your attitude to the PT is that you insist to extrapolate your view of Anakin as ultimate true, but this is just an opinion and as such, must be proved, as many people do here. Anyway, If you think Anakin is what you think, he is I‘m surprised that you like (maybe) the OT and hate the PT. It is logical to be the opposite, as in the end Vader becomes Vader and OT shows his redemption that you think impossible as he is even more cruel and evil in ANH and TESB.
P.S. It is strange to show the last shot above of Kubrick as masterpiece. The scene could be, but if we speak of the cinematography only: this is typical sitcom scenery: close plan in a room when both characters are on sofa/bed and in a close plan, so close, that the center of the “photo“ are the knees of the protagonist that is completely anti-aestetic. I should say that I know why Kubrick did it and it was INTENTIONAL, my point is that a static shot of a “everyday conversation“ isn‘t a prove of anything, it depends of the context.

 

It might be an indication of the quality (real or perceived) of their actual work, or, or the work concerned. You know this, and your snarky reply is merely a response to a parting-shot to avoid addressing the point he was trying to make.

Anyway, to some of your 'points':

They are the same characters and in a part of the same story, developed of course from previous appearances but still influenced by what has happened previously.

Well, when Anakin rants about killing the Sand People, he singles out killing, 'not just the men, but the women, and the children too,' and this dialogue indicates that he has fallen outside of what is considered 'acceptable'; the idea of that scene was to show that he was being corrupted by the Dark Side, after all. Padme knows about this, and yet she seems nonplussed that he could stoop to such acts later on; furthermore, she doesn't really dump him either; even after she expresses her dismay about this, she still tells him, 'I love you!' and insists there is still good in him. And taking into account how he acts otherwise, her not being—at the least—more circumspect about him is pretty odd to say the least.

Let's see: in terms of dialogue-dominant parts, we have:

• Palpatine's office
• The mates in the lift
• Meeting Padme in her flat, and the subsequent discussion about security
• Jedi Council scenes
• Talking whilst packing, and the transit to Naboo
• 'Is he not the chosen one?'
• Love scenes
• Meetings, dinners, etc. on Naboo
• Dex's diner, and searching things
• Tour of Kamino
• Meetings on Tatooine
• Dooku meeting Obi-wan
• 'This is a crisis'

This is more than, "4-5 scenes in the entire movie," and combines things and leaves out talky bits in other scenes.
Anyway, much of the time, the actors in the P.T. tend to display little or poor use of intonation, speak quite quietly—or at a constant volume anyway—speak quite slowly and with a very even emphasis on words (which can be described as robotic). The defence that they speak 'posh' or whatnot itself shows the 'tone-deafness' you claim Kuro is showing; poshness stays even if a character is talking in a familiar or personal manner, and 'posh' speakers (or those in old films while we're at it) still use emphasis and intonation to put emotion into their lines. Alec Guinness still sounds that way even though he speaks familiarly, and many of his line have gravity or authority behind them, conversely, he does not lose the personal or emotive element as a ghost, and still uses those things I listed. Plenty of characters sound posh in Star Wars and were not described as robotic, yet Christensen does not sound posh and his acting was criticised; McGregor, meanwhile, sounds like somebody learning an R.P. accent. If you just put 'posh' out there, it is perfectly right to then compare other posh people even if you arbitrarily exclude comparisons after the fact.

 

Because awards are an objective measurement of artistic quality, right? And how very noble of you to go after work that won Razzies (another objective measurement of artistic quality?). As if that automatically gives you any credibility as far as criticism goes...

Condescension should go elsewhere indeed. Yours.

 

These Razzie awards are nothing else than jokes in case some people still didn't get it. You normally don't give a reward to something which seems to be bad. It's like giving a reward to a student who have failed continually his exams at school.

 

Yes but there's an indignity (as well as humor) in getting them. The well received movies & performances are not awarded them. Have a look through the winners over the years. A roll-call of terrible films & performances.

 

2K-D2, Roger Ebert was a respected expert within his field. You’re not.

I have no problem with the way Vader is portrayed in RETURN OF THE JEDI (let’s face it, he’s basically the heavy in the other two) for one simple reason. It’s a redemption story. Vader chooses to renounce his evil ways. He rejects the dark side, accepts responsibility for his actions and makes an active effort to atone. The story is not about how Vader is still a good man. He’s not. The story is that he used to be a good man, and that Luke does everything he can to bring his father back. Anakin, as shown in the prequels, was never a good man. He’s a megalomaniacal, mass murdering lunatic who lusts after power, resents those that won’t just hand it to him, and lashes out violently when he doesn’t get his way. This is not a good man. This isn’t even some morally ambiguous character. This is an evil crazy person who seriously needs to be locked up. I wasn’t kidding when I said that he’s just like Travis Bickle and Jake LaMotta. When he eventually declares his allegiance to the Emperor, it comes across as less the story of a good man tragically seduced to evil and more the story of a man who lusted after power seizing the opportunity to grab it. This isn’t tragic. Between the beginning of ATTACK OF THE CLONES and the end of REVENGE OF THE SITH, Anakin barely changes at all, except in two ways:

1) he’s wearing a metal suit

2) he’s playing for a different team

That’s it. That’s the extent of his change. He already supported fascism in ATTACK OF THE CLONES. He already murdered children. I know that Portman acts all horrified that he could possibly murder children and support fascism in the scene at the landing platform…but he already did both of those things before she married him! He’s no different! This is not a good man. He never was a good man! I thought this was supposed to be the story of how a good man was tragically seduced to evil. Yet we’re supposed to believe that this child-murdering, fascist nutjob is a good guy in ATTACK OF THE CLONES. This is my issue with it. Not what he does after the Emperor starts calling him Lord Vader. I take issue with what he did while he was still supposedly good. And frankly, I have a really hard time thinking of a single noble or heroic thing he proactively does in ATTACK OF THE CLONES. The only thing I can come up with, in terms of a heroic deed, is his refusal to abandon Obi-Wan Kenobi at the beginning of REVENGE OF THE SITH. That’s it. Everything else is just him being thrown into a situation he does not control. We needed more of that and less murdering children in order to convince us that he was ever a good man. so yes, I take issue with the claim that those who murder children are good.

I really think the main problem is that he is just thoroughly unlikable. Even before the scene with the Sand People, he always came across as being pretty temperamental and petulant. Yeah, Luke was a bit whiny in the first film, but at least he had a desire to help people and fight against injustice. All of Anakin’s desires seem to arise from a sense of entitlement. He acts like an ungrateful, resentful jerk to the guy who’s allegedly his friend. He treats his girlfriend like crap.* He constantly whines and moans about how everyone around him is a meaniehead because he doesn’t get his way 100% of the time. He’s upset that he actually has to work for things and thinks that Obi-Wan should just hand them to him. Whenever Obi-Wan tries to teach him anything, Anakin just blows him off and dismisses him (notice how during the chase scene, Obi-Wan is trying to teach this little turd and Anakin’s all like, “Oh, I’m not paying attention to your boring lesson cuz I’m more interested driving this cool car as recklessly as possible.”). You know, if I were in Obi-Wan’s position, I’d also hate this little brat and regard him as an obnoxious burden. I have no sympathy for this self-centered, megalomaniacal, child-murdering, entitled, petulant, bratty ****head. ****head is really the best word to describe Anakin Skywalker, and I really wish spelling it out wasn’t against the terms and conditions. I rank Anakin Skywalker alongside Ferris Bueller in terms of alleged “heroes” whom I just find to be utterly repugnant, loathsome psychopaths (yeah, I’m one of those guys who just can’t stand Ferris Bueller).

Frankly, I actually have to eliminate the prequels from my own personal head canon in order to make RETURN OF THE JEDI even remotely palatable…because the assertion that there’s still good in him is frankly laughable when there was little-to-no good throughout his entire adult life.

*Yeah, look at how he reacts when she wounds his ego and how he treats her around her peers. She should’ve dumped him for this scene alone, even if we just pretend that the whole murdering children thing never happened:



I’m trying to think of another movie character who would act like this. The closest I can think of is Biff Tannen from BACK TO THE FUTURE. And yes, I remember the audience cheered when George McFly decked that jerk (yes, I’m old enough to have seen BACK TO THE FUTURE in theaters when it came out).

Scorsese was showing the allure of the gangster lifestyle, and how it could seduce someone. He never was advocating it, nor attempting to glorify it. Nor did Scorsese ever try to convince us that Henry Hill was somehow a good person. Lucas tries to convince us that Anakin Skywalker is a good man…despite the fact that we never actually see him being a good man.

I understood Karen Hill’s motivations just fine. I understood exactly why she married Henry, why she was frustrated with him, and why she stayed with him. Even with Iris Steensma in TAXI DRIVER, I got a good sense of her personality, why she entered this life, how Sport manipulated her and took advantage of her, preyed on her insecurities and resentments.

As for THE DEPARTED, I’d need to watch that one again in order to comment on it.

Um, you don’t get to accuse Martin Scorsese of misogyny. Not after claiming that women should always stick with abusive partners no matter what. Not after claiming that it’s never acceptable for a woman to leave her partner under any circumstances, even if her partner has become a murderous psychopath who just tried to murder you and your unborn children. You don’t get to make that claim, so please stop with that. Martin Scorsese has never once advocated the death of women, unlike you. So the hypocrisy on that ends right now.

As I said, my problem is that Lucas tries to pretend that Anakin Skywalker is a good man. He’s not. Moral ambiguity is fine. Complexity is fine. Coppola pulled it off with THE GODFATHER. Michael Corleone starts as a good man, and then slowly but surely becomes everything he swore he would never become. That’s tragedy.

Christopher Nolan did it exceedingly well with THE DARK KNIGHT. Harvey Dent starts as a good man who eventually snaps when he loses everything. Even Batman himself engages in some incredibly questionable and dubious activities throughout the course of the movie. The line “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain” obviously foreshadows Harvey’s eventual fate, but there’s also a bit of haunting resonance to it if you apply it to Batman as well as Harvey. We see how the fight against the seemingly unstoppable force that is the Joker lures Batman into this gray moral area (most notably when he starts spying on everyone in Gotham City). But where Harvey eventually succumbs to darkness, Batman eventually stops himself before it’s too late. Upon realizing all the things he’s ended up doing over the course of the film, he decides that he can no longer be Batman. After being put into a position where he’s forced to break his no-kill rule, he willingly retires from vigilantism and makes himself a fugitive. The Joker may be in prison, but he actually kinda won if you think about it. He got Batman to violate all his principles and finally ended up destroying Batman. It’s quite dark and tragic if you really think about it. This is how you do moral complexity. There’s a difference between what Christopher Nolan did, which was to take an iconic hero and make him morally ambiguous, and what George Lucas did, which was try to pretend that an evil crazy person was somehow good.

The way that Alex and Deltoid are positioned in the frame is deliberately off-putting, and as I said, the way Kubrick has them interact with each other during the scene, the way he visually illustrates the power dynamic between these two feeds the audience information. It’s garish and slapstick-y, but it’s also quite potent. Kubrick does so much more with that scene than just dryly tell us that Alex has a parole officer and that he’s been in trouble with the law before. Tell me, what information does Lucas visually convey to us in this scene?



The three characters are walking down a hallway and talking. That’s it. It’s a dry exposition dump. No humor, no wit, no style, no visually feeding us information about the characters, the dynamic going on between them, no foreshadowing of their eventual fates. I guess I found out that Yoda uses that comfy little hover chair to get around. Whatever.

In A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Kubrick doesn’t just use the scene to throw exposition at the viewer.

I’m sorry. I should bow down to your enlightened wisdom. Obviously, Roger Ebert was a dummy who knew nothing about film and we should just ignore and disregard what he says. I mean, he’s just a respected expert within his field. You guys comment on Internet message boards.

That’s why, from now on, instead of taking medical advice from actual trained professional experts, I’ll just listen to some stranger on the Internet because, “Hyuk! Experts are stoopid! Dey disagreez wit me.”

Siskel & Ebert created annual worst of the year lists. And have you ever heard of something called the Darwin Awards? Most of those “winners” aren’t Noble laureates.

 

Sarcasm and humor in these types of prizes aren't generally taken seriously, and were never meant to be taken seriously in the first place since their were created for sarcasm. I mean like, seriously, you use such type of examples as the Razzies to build up your arguments? And people generally don't care of what of other critics as Siskel & Ebert say about movies because:

a) They are able to form their own opinion about the movies they've watched;

b) The critics' opinions are only personal opinions, as anyone else's own opinion, and don't necessarily represent what each individual can think. They are neither indisputable facts.

c) If people really need to rely on other's opinion, then they must really not be able to think by themselves, or must really not be confortable and confident with their own personal point of view and opinion...

Kuro Don't expect me to reply to your answer for what I'm about to say. But I really think it might be time for you to stop drinking the haterade here on this thread. You hate the prequels and George Lucas? Fine, you're allowed to!

But I'm really blaffed that you have arrived to such a point in your arguments that you have made a grotesque (and also laughable) comparison between a Sitcom and a Star Wars movie earlier on this thread, using your own point of view and other's opinions as indeniable facts, and using the Razzie awards to justify your disdain towards those movies...

The other thing that all your arguments reveal is that you must not really be confortable with your own opinion towards the PT, since many other people think differently from you, for having used such odd maneuvers in your arguments, and spending so much time and energy into this. It's almost like you're urging people to think the same way as you do: "You have to believe with me that those movies are crap! Come on! Hate those movies! Think the same way as I do! There are others who think the same thing as I do"

 

a) It’s called passing the time when there’s nothing going on at work.

b) I’m not saying that anybody should agree with a position just because Roger Ebert has it. I am, however, that Roger Ebert is a respected expert in his field, and that to casually dismiss his opinion and treat it as being invalid and worthy of nothing but mockery and scorn is the height of hubris. My scorn and mockery of the prequel films is warranted, because they frankly aren’t that well-regarded or respected. In other words, they are legitimate targets of mockery and scorn. Same can be said of SHOWGIRLS, BATTLEFIELD EARTH, FREDDY GOT FINGERED, and TRANSFORMERS. Deriding these is not hubris.

Let me put it this way. Two of my favorite films of all time are CITIZEN KANE and CALIGULA. If someone were to treat CITIZEN KANE with mockery and scorn, and act as if they knew more about film than Orson Welles, I would think that they were arrogant, because CITIZEN KANE is a highly-regarded film that is frequently tops lists of the greatest films ever made. Who are they to say that they know more about filmmaking than a man who is widely regarded as a cinematic genius? However, if someone were to treat CALIGULA with mockery and scorn, and act as if they knew more about film than Bob Guccione, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. CALIGULA is not a respected movie, and claiming to know more about film than Guccione is not hubris, since that film is widely regarded as an epic failure. I happen to think there’s a certain gutsy brilliance to that movie (probably unintended by Guccione, in all honesty), but I understand that many strongly disagree (including Roger Ebert, for what it’s worth, who went so far as to give the movie 0 stars).

The prequels, frankly, are only slightly better-regarded than CALIGULA is. Saying that George Lucas screwed up, trying to figure out what went wrong, and speculating about what could’ve made the movies better is not hubris, since the public perception of the prequel trilogy is that it was a huge disappointment (obviously not in terms of how much money it made, but certainly in terms of quality). It might be a good idea to engage honestly with prequel critics and try to understand the source of disagreement rather than dismissing it as ignorance or claiming that the films were just too brilliant for our feeble minds. I don’t get defensive when people mock CALIGULA, nor do I assume that people who didn’t like it have invalid opinions or that they failed to understand its brilliance. I simply see it differently than they do. I don’t even get offended when people say, “How can you possibly enjoy this sick reprehensible garbage?” I totally get why people think CALIGULA is reprehensible garbage. And I get why many people have nothing but snide contempt for Bob Guccione and treat him like an egomaniacal moron who had no clue about how to make a movie (including the star of the film, Malcolm McDowell).

Where they see an epic disaster, I see something truly unique and fascinating. It’s a truly ambitious undertaking, one that was a huge gamble (one that I’m frankly amazed that anyone thought would work), and I think it’s just insane, excessive, and bizarre enough that it actually kinda succeeds in a surreal sorta way. It’s obscene, shocking, offensive, sick, and depraved, yet it has a big budget and A-list actors. I honestly have to respect this film simply for daring to exist. It actually has a pretty good score (I think that Prokofiev piece that plays over the opening credits is perfect for a film about an insane Roman Emperor and the perfect intro for the trip to hell we’re about to take), some damn good production design, and brilliant over-the-top performances by Malcolm McDowell and Peter O’Toole (O’Toole’s performance is perhaps the most bizarre in film history, but even though it’s undoubtedly the result of severe alcohol and substance intoxication on his part, it’s perfect for this role in this movie). It actually has some quotable dialogue. “I have existed from the morning of the world…” “MORE CONVICTION!!!!” “You’re an honest man, Proculus, which makes you a bad Roman. Therefore, you’re a traitor! Logical, hmm?” Honestly, for a film about Caligula, I think what we ended up with is…exactly what a film about Caligula should be.

And if you think I’m some sort of sick depraved psychopath for enjoying CALIGULA, then I totally understand. You may be right even. All I ask is to understand what you see in the prequels…because frankly, I don’t get it. and maybe you can understand why I and so many others find them so underwhelming…just as I understand why so many people find CALIGULA to be a bunch of sick nonsense.

As a gift, here’s an excerpt from Roger Ebert’s CALIGULA review for those who wish to throw it at me. I promise that I will not say that your opinion is invalid by virtue of agreeing with Roger, nor will I claim that I know better than he does:

 

Crazy fan theory: The opening shot of the PT (Retro Order) refutes everything imaginable (that could possibly be criticized) and then the rest of the seven-hour movie is delicious gravy.



This is easily the most aesthetically advanced shot in the history of cinema. I'd love to hear the argument otherwise, let alone see another contender.

P.S. Roger Ebert was a journalistic critic, not an academic one. He was hardly an expert. He watched every movie once, rarely twice. A jack of all trades and a master of none.

 

ok , I'm lost , didn't Roger Ebert give the prequels good reviews ?

 

He gave tpm and rots 3 1/2 stars and aotc 2 stars because the projection was faulty in the theater he saw it in.

I still don't understand what people expect the PT to do that it doesn't do.

 

Something odd with Ebert's ranking, he ranks the movies over 4 stars instead of 5 stars as in the coventional way: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith-2005

But indeed, 3 & 1/2 stars over a total of 4 is very good for ROTS and TPM.

 

Samuel Vimes

when a large union of planets splits there's bound to be conflict , from both sides , I'm sure that doesn't take much imagination . I don't see the Republic worlds as innocent in all this , it'd be naive to think that .

what ?
that makes no sense , of course the republic can attack the Seps , people in the republic do have weapons you know .
and of course they've got the jedi .

so you just assumed that all the people on separatist worlds were baddies .? oh well ,ok .

I never did , it just wouldn't make sense .

she may be ignorant of that , but she's also familiar with a lot of these planets who have joined the seps and she's obviously of the opinion that they don't want war the same as most of the people in the republic don't want it , I mean this is made very clear in more than one film .

haha! the republic = overall good , are you kidding ? the corruption is spoke of all the time , that's why thousands of systems left , they're ruled by the Sith master . And they're the ones that declared war by invading Geonosis .

It's fine if you went the wrong way with this , after all yes most of the 'good guys' we see are in the Republic , and it's easy to think that the Seps are bad , and that plays to how people are duped in real life , people do tend to be on a 'side' in a conflict , but then when you think about it after you realise if you ask a few obvious questions - that people let themselves be fooled .

but for myself - I never thought all the separatists were all evil , did you just think that all those thousands of worlds were baddies ? .

 

Actually, a 4-star rating system is the convention for newspaper reviews. And I should point out that Roger always maintained that he absolutely hated the star ratings and thought they were indicative of nothing. He always encouraged people to read the review to see what he actually thought.

The only prequel film he really seemed to have any enthusiasm for was THE PHANTOM MENACE. He mostly praised the imaginative designs and asserted that he didn’t care how boring the characters were because he believed they’d get more interesting as the films progressed. I think he was a bit disappointed when that didn’t happen. He didn’t like ATTACK OF THE CLONES at all, and his REVENGE OF THE SITH review seems incredibly lukewarm for a 3½-star review:

He’s still very critical of the acting, characterization and writing (Ian McDiarmid notwithstanding). He mostly praises the visual effects and the action scenes, although he thinks it lacks the sense of wonder the original had, and he also thinks the lightsabers have become boring by being so oversaturated.It also seems that he’s praising it for bringing things full circle.

The fact that he was the first film critic to win a Pulitzer tells me that he was considered an expert.

But let’s see what academic critics have to say about STAR WARS:

Now let’s see what the academic critics have to say about Spielberg:

I’ll take Roger Ebert, who could intelligently discourse about film without being an elitist snob.

 

First of all, that's not "academic critics." Secondly, the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy is the only blockbuster art film because it's the only one that was independently financed by its creator. You have art and kitsch totally backwards.
It's sort of like how the PT executes imagery beyond the fidelity of The Last Judgment about 600,000 times over.

Imagination fuel that lasts forever isn't something to be dismissed as merely on par with something like "Married with Children."

 

That first quote being mentionned by someone who adores the OT, as you, is quite ironic.

I don't doubt that Roger Ebert was intelligent and could expose his views in a constructive way. But does it necessarily mean that those who don't share his thoughts and critics towards the prequels are not, and aren't able to form an informed opinion that is favorable towards the PT? Simply because Ebert won a Pulitzer and others not? Because, it seems that's what you're suggesting here with your previous arguments on this thread...

And speaking of elitist snob, simply because John Simon didn't share the same views as Ebert and Siskel towards TESB and ROTJ and has brought the same critics and harsh attacks towards the OT as the ones towards the PT that many keep mentionning today, simply because he doesn't like Star Wars at all in general, does it make him an elitist snob on the video below (even if he's very close to act like one when he says his colleagues seem to lack "adult mentality")?



EDIT: I know some people in my family and friends who don't like Star Wars, and mentionned things like: "they are just kids movies". But I'm never going to say that they are snub because of that. No, what is really snub is treating or suggesting that people who have a different opinion than yours aren't able to form a constructive and informed opinion (and therefore they don't count) simply because they aren't publicly known or aren't recognized by an academy of critics or whatever, and because they didn't receive the stamp of approval or a prize from a known institution to express their opinions and views.

 

Ok Brid. Forget the PT for a second. Exactly what plot holes are there in the OT as a trilogy? The Prequels haven't been made yet. So?..

 

What you want to imagine is fine but I am talking about what the film actually SHOWS.
And the seps are established as way more hostile than the republic.

They are getting so hostile that the republic is thinking about creating an army just in case they migth need it.
The senate is debating this and some are for it and some are against it.
But it is up for a vote.
Was there a vote among the seps?

LOL, so you think a country that has no army can invade another country just because some of their people own guns?
My country, Sweden, do have an army but it is quite small and there are people that own guns. But for us to attack and invade another country? That is laughable.

The Jedi are too few to conquer a planet and they have no fleet of warships.
Plus I really doubt the Jedi would be willing to attack peaceful worlds.

Bottom line, the republic has no army and no military capabilities so they can't attack the seps.
The seps however do seem to have that capability even at the start of AotC.

No I am talking about how the film PAINTS the seps, try and read what I write.
My argument is that the film is portraying the seps as bad guys. We are not shown good and noble people among them. All the seps we see are greedy, evil and willing to murder people.

Take the film Braveheart and look how the English are portrayed in that film.
Most of the Englishmen we see are made to look quite bad, they are not shown to have good qualities or be overall nice people. They are bad guys.

Or take Rambo III and look how Russians are portrayed in that film.
Or a number of WW2 movies from 40-60 years ago. Quite often the Germans or the Japanese were not shown in a very good light.

The seps we see with Dooku are the leaders of the seps and they want war very clearly.
So either Padme is simply a misguided idealist or she is very ignorant.
Plus the number mention in the crawl was "several hundreds", the number that Dooku mentions is 10 000. So the worlds that Padme spoke of could be those first ones and she didn't know about all these others.

Said corruption was caused largely by the TF and those like them. And were are the TF now?
With the seps. So the seps are lead by the very people that CAUSED the corruption in the senate.
Forgive me if I don't view their government as less corrupt than the senate.
If you are upset at Wall Street for what they did some years back, would you trust a government run by former Lehman Brothers executives?

[/QUOTE]

Again I am talking about how the film PORTRAYS the seps. And in my opinion, the seps are portrayed as little more than bad guys. Same with the Imperials in the OT. How would you say they are shown? Mostly as bad guys right?

Some films are able to show a conflict and yet be able to show that there are good people on both sides in said conflict.
Take the two Clint Eastwood films, Flags of our fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Two films that showed two sides of the same war and showing that there were decent people on both sides.

Or take the two Marvel series, Daredevil and Jessica Jones. The first season bad guy in Daredevil is a villain sure and he is capable of doing very bad things. But that isn't all he is. He does have more sides to him.
The villain in Jessica Jones I found to be little more than an evil monster and consequently I found Wilson Fisk way more interesting than Kilgrave.

In closing, my argument is how the films AotC and RotS portrays the seps.
Not that I can't imagine that there might be some good people among them.
The films simply didn't establish any and thus the seps became little more than evil bad guys and the conflict lost dramatic potential.
Had the films shown some that there were good people on both sides and fleshed out what the seps wanted, I think they would have been better for it.

But alas no.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

It’s no secret that elitist snobs have always hated STAR WARS. My point is that if you want an “academic critique” of STAR WARS, buckle up. That’s what you’re in for.

I enjoy having to repeat myself constantly because you ignore what I actually say in front of a straw man.

You’re allowed to disagree with Roger Ebert. I disagree with him on several films. But I always respected him. Saying this is acceptable:

Here’s what’s unacceptable:

Contemptuously dismissing him is not acceptable. Claiming that he is ignorant and acting as if you understand film better than he does is unacceptable. Saying that anyone who agrees with his opinion has rendered their own opinion invalid is unacceptable. Now let me repeat that in the hopes that this time you won’t ignore it in favor of strawmanning.

You’re allowed to disagree with Roger Ebert. I disagree with him on several films. But I always respected him. Saying this is acceptable:

Here’s what’s unacceptable:

Contemptuously dismissing him is not acceptable. Claiming that he is ignorant and acting as if you understand film better than he does is unacceptable. Saying that anyone who agrees with his opinion has rendered their own opinion invalid is unacceptable. Now let me repeat that in the hopes that this time you won’t ignore it in favor of strawmanning.

You’re allowed to disagree with Roger Ebert. I disagree with him on several films. But I always respected him. Saying this is acceptable:

Here’s what’s unacceptable:

Contemptuously dismissing him is not acceptable. Claiming that he is ignorant and acting as if you understand film better than he does is unacceptable. Saying that anyone who agrees with his opinion has rendered their own opinion invalid is unacceptable. Now let me repeat that in the hopes that this time you won’t ignore it in favor of strawmanning.

You’re allowed to disagree with Roger Ebert. I disagree with him on several films. But I always respected him. Saying this is acceptable:

Here’s what’s unacceptable:

Contemptuously dismissing him is not acceptable. Claiming that he is ignorant and acting as if you understand film better than he does is unacceptable. Saying that anyone who agrees with his opinion has rendered their own opinion invalid is unacceptable. Now let me repeat that in the hopes that this time you won’t ignore it in favor of strawmanning.

Have I finally gotten the point across or do I need to repeat it again?

According to Roger Ebert, yes:

Have your own opinion all you want. Just don’t claim that you know more about film than Roger Ebert does. You don’t. Nor do I. Nor does anybody posting on this board. Roger knew more about the art of film and understood it far more deeply than you or I ever will. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact…and to claim otherwise is pure hubris.

 

How dare you assume that someone you don't know knows less about film than Roger Ebert.

 

Roger always knows more about films than any human being to ever exist!

I thought it was common knxledge amongst you "unbelieving" fools

"Praise ye Roger fo'r he hath more power than any of us! He is a god above gods!"

"Roger Roger"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

To mention Kuro, saying this is also "pure hubris".