Roger Ebert and the PREQUELS

I think DINVADER will be using it a lot. I imagine it took a long time to type that and one wants to get the most mileage out of it.

And people, get off Roger Ebert's back. Is it a crime to like TPM more than AOTC? I share the same view! Just because it's a sequel and "Ooh, darker!" and "Ooh, more mature" doesn't automatically make it better. I think AOTC is the $%!##*@$* Star Wars movie so far.

 

I agree JohnWilliams. I also liked TPM more and find AOTC to be my least favorite SW movie by far.

 

They're both great films. Get off our backs.

Remember: Petty intelligentsia.

 

DarthSil, we are merely stating our opinions on the film. In my opinion, AoTC was not a good film (I wish it was) and it was my least favorite SW movie. If you like it and think it is great, thats fine. But I am also entitled to my opinion that it wasn't.

 

And so am I.

 

If anything, this just goes to show how fickle movie viewers can be. It also shows that even the most well respected--or at least well known--critics can have inconsistent and conflicting tastes over time.

 

Ebert goes on and on about the fact that it was shot digitally. He has a serious hang-up about anything shot digitally. The main reason for this is because he has stock in a new film format called Maxivision 48. He has mentioned it in several reviews. He even mentioned it again today for James Cameron's new 3D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss.

Cameron feels the new 3D techonolgy would be a great new way to see movies and will be shooting his next full-length feature film on this new 3D format. In Ebert's review of the documentary, he goes on for the last 3 paragraphs on how Maxivision 48 should be the future and not digital, nor 3D.

Here's the review if you want to read it: Ebert's Ghosts of the Abyss review

Ebert has always let his personal feelings affect his overall opinion about films he reviews; as he should. Sometimes he ends up liking a certain hot actress and giving positive reviews to films that could be considered questionable. I've watched him for well over a decade, and he has certain hang-ups. Sometimes those hang-ups distract him from the film itself. It's most apparent when his review focuses on what technology it was shot on, rather than the content of what was shot. Ebert was obviously completely distracted by comparing Attack of the Clones's look to what he thinks film looks like. It's very apparent when he writes an article about how he later saw Episode II digitally projected, then ran downstairs (or upstairs) during the movie to compare what he sees.

He literally did that. If I could give you the link to that article, I would, but they don't seem to archive his other articles, besides his reviews, online.

He obviously is easily distracted by the whole controversy, as are many other viewers. That's what happens when someone like Lucas tries to change the industry.

 

A biased film critic? Gee, who would have thunk?

 

Spam or not, it was interesting.

 

When I first saw AOTC, I was completely amazed at the scale and cleverness. The effects were huge. That's what Ebert loved about TPM. I didn't really remember any of the dialogue (maybe that's a good thing). After seeing the DVD a couple times, I began to have bad flashbacks of the pointless script. "You are in my very soul."

I had no problem with Padme's lawyer-like style, she had been raised as a politician before her teenage years.
Bottom line: The dialogue was not that bad, it was just delivered in a bad way.

If all that was bad about AOTC was in TPM, and perhaps the other three four-star films, then why did Ebert not enjoy Episode II? Good question.

But my real question is how in the world can someone living cannot like Chewie and Han Solo???????

 

But my real question is how in the world can someone living cannot like Chewie and Han Solo???????

Probably the same reasons why not everybody likes the prequels. You know, different strokes for different folks and so on.

 

AotC was the chance for Padme to rid herself of the Amidala persona. Personally, I think GL and Natalie Portman failed to pull that off.

 

AotC was the chance for Padme to rid herself of the Amidala persona. Personally, I think GL and Natalie Portman failed to pull that off.

Who says that was even their intent?

 

What do you mean?

 

You said that Lucas and Portman failed to rid Padme of the Amidala persona. I'm asking, what makes you think they intended to do this in the first place?

 

I remember back in the 80's Siskell and Ebert had a "best of" show. I forgot if this was "best sci-fi" or "best of 70's", but anyway, one of them was comparing ANH to a video arcade game (clip they were showing was Luke and Han shooting down the pursuing tie-fighters), and how fun it was.

I don't know why Ebert liked TPM but not AotCs. Maybe at first he was happy that there was a new Star Wars movie, but AotC did not turn out how he might thought is should be.

 

You said that Lucas and Portman failed to rid Padme of the Amidala persona. I'm asking, what makes you think they intended to do this in the first place?

I don't know if they intentionally set out to do it, but they had to do it. It is Padme's inner conflict between duty and love: Amidala=Duty, Padme=Love.
Padme uses 'Amidala' to hide her true feelings for Padme. For the audiance to have any sympathy for Padme, she needed to realise that Amidala is not her.

 

I don't know if they intentionally set out to do it, but they had to do it. It is Padme's inner conflict between duty and love: Amidala=Duty, Padme=Love.
Padme uses 'Amidala' to hide her true feelings for Padme. For the audiance to have any sympathy for Padme, she needed to realise that Amidala is not her.

I mean no offense to you, but I don't understand what you are getting at.

Amidala is a name Padme takes on when she becomes Queen. It doesn't represent who she is as a person, unless I missed your point.

 

I don't know if they intentionally set out to do it, but they had to do it.

If you say so.

And this is why some people don't like the prequels. They assume Lucas should have done it their way and criticize him when he doesn't.

 

And this is why some people don't like the prequels. They assume Lucas should have done it their way and criticize him when he doesn't.

The story IS there - it's not something made up.

It doesn't represent who she is as a person...

Of course it does. That was the whole point of the love story in EpII. Anakin has always been in love with Padme, but it is Padme struggles between duty(Amidala) and herself(Padme).

I think Pfft wrote a really good thing about this somewhere.

 

I think the point that the movies are trying to convey is that Padmé appeared to need to find her "real" self, not that she needed to get rid of her "Amidala" personality. Everyone in life deals with the idea of responsibility vs. personal desires.

Saying that they needed her to get rid of her "Amidala" personality is just something that you thought should be done; a personal desire.

 

I see your point, but I still feel Padme had to rid herself of Amidala in order to allow herself her own freedom. She struggles with that.

 

Aren't we a bit off-topic now?

 

Nope.

 

Haven't read all the posts here. Just wanted to spit out my opinion, for whatever its worth. I liked TPM. Saw it 7 times in the theater. I didn't like AOTC. Saw it 1.5 times in the theater. AOTC could have been good, but was poorly edited and characters who should have been stiff weren't, and those who should have been lose, were stiff.