Star Wars Episode III: REVENGE OF THE SITH [Archive] - FilmLeaf

trevor826

05-20-2005, 03:34 AM

My original post from the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread.

"Midnight screening of Revenge of the Sith, jam packed, very hot but a good atmosphere. George has referenced a lot of scenes from the original trilogy in an effort to appease the fans who weren't too happy with episodes 1 & 2. I'll probably see it again before writing any sort of review because I did feel tired especially in the heat."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think once it's released on DVD it'll become the Star Wars drinking game, a quick shot for every reference to the previous films, I'm talking specifics such as classic dialogue or scenes which are obviously designed to trigger memories, I can guarantee you would have a very hard time making it to the end of the film.

I believe it was George's intention to trigger memories because he obviously needed to tie in the seperate halves of his hexology? and also needed to provide some fan service after the disappointment of the Episodes 1 and 2.

The one thing I will say, like the Animatrix with the last of the Matrix films, you will get straight into the plot if you have watched the Clone Wars cartoon series which introduces new characters some of which play a fairly prominent part in the film, not that it's essential but it certainly adds to the proceedings, overall an enjoyable end? middle section? to the series.

Cheers Trev.

cinemabon

05-20-2005, 08:47 AM

Revenge of the Sith – A film by George Lucas

At last Mr. Lucas will reveal himself, at last the Sith will have revenge. All is explained, all is revealed. The unanswered questions raised since this second series began are at last revealed and answered: What are “midiclorians?” How was Anakin conceived? Where did Darth Sidious come from? How was Darth Vadar created? What happens to Count Dukoo? Why couldn’t Yoda defeat Darth Sidious? How did Obi Wan survive? What happened to Luke and Leia’s mother? And a hundred other smaller questions are all answered in this final chapter that links the first three films with chapters four, five, and six.

The Star Wars series of films are an enigma in and of themselves. Last night on Charlie Rose, the rather “underspoken” Lucas, who hardly ever says enough in an interview to amount to anything, was quite candid in how the entire Star Wars series began. He wanted an old fashioned morality play told in the form of a Saturday matinee serial. As a “cultural anthropologist” in college, Lucas became fascinated in how film could deliver a moral message about society in a clear and yet subtle fashion. His very first film (an animation) reveals more about Lucas than all his other movies combined. He had a message to say about how he felt society was headed. That in turn, led to THX 1138, and even American Graffiti. In Graffiti, Lucas wanted to describe the ‘mating rituals’ of the American teenager in the early 1960’s before the ‘hippie’ culture changed our perceptions of that interaction. Fascinating.

One can clearly see the high moral ground in Revenge of the Sith, and the anthropologist at work. In Anakin, we see the slow undoing of how performing one’s duty can lead to acts of evil. From the earliest days of man through the Nazi’s and even in Iraq, “only following orders” can lead to disastrous consequences. So Anakin, following the orders of his Emperor, and trying to save the Republic from the evil forces trying to tear it apart, commits unspeakable acts of brutality, and in the end, comes to typify how a good soldier can easily become one of the most despicable character.

Yes, Revenge of the Sith is filled with all the beautiful images one comes to expect from a Star Wars film. The special effects are so state of the art that few films will probably be as impressive this year, except Peter Jackson’s this Christmas. Lucas, by the way, admires Jackson. The lightsaber duels (there are two simultaneously) at the end are so well choreographed that they rival some of the best swordplay in any film. Sadly, good does not triumph over evil, however, the film does end on a hopeful note, following the old Hollywood formula to never leave ‘em crying. While the middle of movie does bog down at times, getting into the character’s descent into hell, there is plenty of action to satisfy the best of what has made the Star Wars films famous. In the end, I would have to say that George Lucas has directed his best Star Wars effort yet, and that fans can come away with their heads held high and wear their Star Wars gear in public again.

wpqx

05-20-2005, 08:47 PM

Ok stop knocking Episode 2 people. I thought Attack of the Clones was fantastic, and worthy of the original trilogy (notice no defense offered for Phantom Menace). This film is by far the darkest of the series (as we all expected it to be) and it is probably the most emotional. I got chills watching Anakin become Vader, and yes I am a dork.

As for the effects, they were fucking horrible. CGI is crap and looks like video game graffics. The prequel trilogy seems more like a commercial for Industrial Light and Magic than a Star Wars movie. Miniatures and puppets, and people in makeup look a hell of a lot better than cartoon characters, which all these characters are.

The light saber battles were a little overdone. I just don't see any point in seeing 80+ yo Christopher Lee doing four flips in the air. Luke and Vader fought plenty of battles without going crazy with acrobatics. They were simpler, and MORE EFFECTIVE. I also noticed that once Anakin become Vader, he starts fighting with just one hand on the light saber, as opposed to the classic two hand grip. BTW he only used one hand in the second trilogy.

Now I can nit-pick about more stuff, but Star Wars films aren't about what's wrong, but what's great about them. I loved Chewbacca being in this, and R2-D2 and C-3PO will always be great, although their homosexual relationship was downplayed a bit this time around. I can't think of any loose ends that weren't tied up, or elluded to, with the possible exception a young Han Solo reference. But on the other hand, a Han Solo child might have broken the mood of the film, which a few references did.

I admire the fact that the film was Pg-13, a first for any Star Wars film, and well there are plenty of things that top other Star Wars films, certainly the greatest display of evil in the series. I'll probably go to see it again soon, but for now I think it was fantastic overall and a great conclusion to the greatest film series of all time.

Johann

05-21-2005, 01:07 PM

Should we cut Lucas any slack?

Here's a guy who at one time (1970) was the most promising filmmaker Hollywood had ever seen. THX-1138 was so ahead of it's time that Warners never knew what they had.

Then American Grafitti became the highest-grossing independent film ever. (Beating Easy Rider's record).

Then the crest of the wave was at it's highest point: Star Wars was being made on a shoestring, with it's makers inventing modern special effects. The movie came out and was a bigger phenomenon than Jaws. Oscars & accolades, Darth Vader is a household name, Mark Hamill hams it up on The Muppet Show, Carrie Fisher hosts Saturday Night Live as Leia, C-3PO is slamming his metal feet into the concrete outside Mann's....

Then...

Lucas is so sucessful he doesn't direct the sequel. That should have been clue number one that things weren't right. But the film was astounding in terms of a sequel. The Empire Strikes Back is one of the few sequels that is arguably better than the original. Lucas was all over the production, but I pay more attention to his role as producer.
Return of the Jedi is great as well, but things are starting to slip. Ewoks, while cooler than Jar Jar, still suck. Lucas said he was going to have all wookies in this film but opted for the kiddie appeal and safe cuteness of the bear-like Ewoks.
Cha-Ching.
Another director change. Why? Anybody know? Somebody must know- who are the star wars geeks here?
Lucas produces.
Lucas has also been busy with his pal Spielberg on the Indiana Jones films- blockbuster action/adventure films. "Popcorn movies" as Lucas calls them. Coppola laments that we lost the greatest independent filmmaker ever to movies not worthy of his talent. Lucas in his own defence says: "I just went another way".

He's raking all this cash in. He's the Bill Gates of cinema.
He sets up his ILM and Skywalker Sound.
He authorizes and is the architect behind the travesty known as Howard the Duck. He must have been inhaling tauntaun dung when he wrote that one. Can Lucas fail? Holy shit yes!
Watch "the Duck"-- especially the part at the end with Lea Thompson singing with him on stage. You'll wanna crawl under a rock...

And then he sits around for a few years, overseeing his "Empire".

1993.
He sees Jurassic Park and says to Spielberg: "It's time to go back to Star Wars".

That was the statement that sealed the fate of the Star Wars franchise. Post haste Lucas tweaks his original films with the new digital effects he has access to. Some scenes change radically. Fans are outraged.
Lucas is flippant: "Star Wars is my Canterbury Tales- all art is never finished, it is only abandoned". Right.

Then we hear Episode 1 is being filmed. Everyone is all-a-titter.
Holy Grail! Lucas is directing again! He's back at Star Wars!
You'd think that a cure for cancer was found.

Myself, I was very apprehensive and not very excited actually.
I like the Star Wars films (especially the first) but at the time of news of the new film I was in full-on Kubrick mode (which has never abated BTW) and there was no way in midichlorian hell Star Wars could ever match the then in-production Eyes Wide Shut.

The rest of the story everybody knows. The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were severely lacklustre in my view. anduril and I saw Menace opening day, and I remember walking out of the theatre, silently, back to his car, trying to come to grips with what we had just seen. The vibe in the theatre was eerie that night. Or should I say morning! It was after midnight when we went in. The focused silence of the crowd as we were watching this film was interesting. It was Star Wars- we saw the screen crawl! We heard the Williams theme!
But it wasn't Star Wars. It was something else.
It didn't have the feel of the original films.
Our cinematic memories were more robust than this.
Star Wars was more entertaining than this.
Star Wars was of a time and of a spirit.
Lucas made that film because he felt he had to make it.
Did he feel he had to make the new trilogy? I don't think so.

Lucas worked best when he was against all odds, creating original, compelling cinema that he felt needed to be made; with "scotch tape and popsicle sticks" as Hamill said once.

With the sfx world at his disposal we get sensory overload on top of the things like cheesy acting and lame-ass dialogue.

Should we cut Lucas any slack?
He didn't cut the fans of the original trilogy much...

It's my Canterbury Tales.
Yeah, OK.
But George: YOU AIN'T CHAUCER.
Chaucer didn't let his kids decide where his career should go.

anduril

05-22-2005, 06:07 PM

Like the lemming that I am, I went to see the final instalment of the Star Wars prequel trilogy last night. Sadly, my low expectations for this latest travesty were more than amply met by Lucas. I would not have thought it was possible that the man who made A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back could make The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, or Revenge of the Sith. This ought to be regarded as one of the worst collapses in creative talent in the history of Hollywood cinema. Certainly, the latest instalment delivers a few moments that will appeal to fans but I have not bought into Lucas's reinvention of the Star Wars universe. Lucas has prostituted the epic, operatic myth of the original trilogy on the altar of special effects and even then it is The Matrix and the Lord of the Rings trilogy that set the new special effects standards in recent years. Revenge of the Sith once again found me openly laughing in the theatre as its two prequel predecessors did: not at deliberately written humour but at the absurdity and nonsense in the movie. Lucas's reinvented Star Wars universe is too busy, too absurd, too campy, too superficial, too devoid of accessible characters to truly enjoy. Worse yet, Lucas had to bring that absurdity and nonsense to the original trilogy too with the Special Edition versions of A New Hope and Return of the Jedi; only Empire Strikes Back has survived the Lucas butchering. I can only hope that some day Lucas relinquishes some creative control over the Star Wars universe and hands over creative reigns to directors and writers who can recapture the qualities that made the originals so great: epic, mythic story-telling, classic tropes and themes, sweeping cinematography, strong characters, wonderful musical scores, and so on. The explicit and very trite political commentary; the increasingly incoherent elaboration of Jedi codes and religion; the moral ambiguity and relativism; the casting of Hayden Christensen and Jake Lloyd; the overuse of CGI and SFX; the inability to successfully use talents like Natalie Portman, Ewan MacGregor, and Liam Neeson; the racial stereotyping; Jar Jar Binks and the Gungans; the uninspired plots; the especially campy and laughable dialogue; all of this and more has destroyed the Star Wars universe. If only Lucas had chosen to mimic another Kurosawa epic like he did with the original trilogy (see The Hidden Fortress) perhaps there might have been something truly worth seeing in the prequel trilogy but unfortunately Lucas evidently relied on his own imagination and the results are crap.

So, having witnessed the implosion of Star Wars, I recently came to a new perspective on the movies. Could it be that the prequel trilogy is a reflection of our contemporary culture while the original trilogy is reflection of our positive potential? Moreover, though I doubt it was Lucas' intent, perhaps everything that is "wrong" about the prequels in comparison to the originals are not so much examples of Lucas's creative implosion but rather symptomatic of the collapse of the Republic and its reinvention as the Galatic Empire while everything that is "right" about the originals is symptomatic of the values and worldview that precipitates renewal. The prequels are a narcissitic story of political gamesmanship and the corruption of bonds of friendship and family without any clearly delineated heroes and a very unsatisfying, scientific, rational approach to "spiritual" phenomenon (i.e., the midichlorians). The characters and ideologies in the prequels are awash in or characterized by self-deception, contradictions, evil, incoherence, spiritual blindness, and/or religious and moral ambiguity. Additionally, the prequel trilogy itself is spectacle for spectacle's sake; it is superficial and shallow; a special effects orgy with fragmented and nonsensical plots; but, perhaps in being so it expresses in form what it also embodies in content. By contrast, the originals are an epic story of resistance against tyranny and evil, the hope and reality of redemption, the important bonds of friendship and family, the centrality of a mystical, faith-type spirituality, and the ultimate victory of good. There is a clear teleological narrative progression in the originals and the movies themselves are not superficial but rather are characterized by profound themes and motifs. Seen in this light, and in their internal chronological order of Episode I-VI, the full experience is a story of narcissim leading to destruction and then a renewal ... the "form", not only the "content", pointing to the philosophical/theological juxtaposition(s) that unite(s) the prequels and the originals. At least, this is now the way I like to view these movies and so redeem the Star Wars legend in my own mind.

cinemabon

05-23-2005, 12:39 PM

According to interviews, Lucas gave up on the labor intensive job of being a director for two reasons: one, was to spend more time with his children as his marriage was falling apart. Secondly, he wanted to create his own movie studio for the second and third films, so he didn't have to go back to Hollywood with his hat in his hand. He accomplished both. Whether the performances are better in one film or another is subjective.

Personally, I think the people who are fixated on the first three films and in denial on the prequels are too focused on the results of Episode VI, rather on what brought them to that point. In a rare 1977 interview, Lucas declared (American Cinemaphotographer) that he had written nine stories. The first three dealt with the politics and bureaucracy of governments, and how Empires are really built by in-fighting and maneuvering, not wars. Those dramas intrigued Lucas, which was why he started the whole saga out that way. The middle section had to do with one of rescue and redemption. The final was a slip back toward a balance, where the two factions are at each other's throat, the outcome uncertain.

Lucas felt the last three were totally unfilmable, as no one would be interested (too much unexplained). The first three stories he considered to be on the boring side. The middle three stories seemed the most commercially viable (remember, his inspiration was the Saturday movie serials that showed the hero left up in the air till next week). When he wrote the script for "The Star Wars" (it's original title), he left enough questions unanswered at the end of the film so that if a sequel would be asked for, he could continue the series. He was determined to make the films whether the public clamored for them or not.

Meanwhile, he was also working on another Saturday-at-the-movies serial called, "Indiana Jones." Even as he worked on Star Wars, Lucas was writing "Raiders of the Lost Arc." That film also started in the middle of a man's career. His idea was to go back and forth through time (again, if the first film was successful) showing different adventures and periods of 'Jones' life. The orginal idea was having it told as a narrative. Lucas had all but given up on directing and handed the reigns over to Steven, who added his own personal touches.

Many of the criticisms I've read on this site are a bit puerile. For all he had to accomplish, Lucas' work has paid off, and quite handsomely. He is commercially successful... he has us all dancing on a string, lining up to see his films (whether we agree on their content or not). Arguing over how it would have been better is pedantic. There it is. You know what kind of film (very commercial) is showing before you buy the ticket. Go see your French film and leave Lucas to those of us with simple minds content to brandish lightsabers with our next door neighbors (he has a weak left side).

anduril

05-23-2005, 01:01 PM

From a blog (http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-star-wars-pre-hype.html) reporting an offline Entertainment Weekly:

Lucas believes that his biggest gamble was starting the saga with Jake Lloyd's gee-whiz kid in Menace. Even his marketing team was skeptical. "That's a little bit why it got overhyped. People [here] were nervous if it was going to break even," says Lucas of Menace's notorious promotional push. "I didn't care. I said, 'This is the story. I know I'm going to need to use Hamburger Helper to get it to two hours, but that's what I want to do.'"

By Lucas' own calculation, 60 percent of the prequel plot he dreamed up decades earlier takes place in Sith. The remaining 40 percent he split evenly between Menace and Clones, meaning each film contained a lot of...filler. Or, in Lucas parlance, "jazz riffs... things that I enjoy... just doodle around a lot."

anduril

05-23-2005, 01:03 PM

Point being Cinemabon, even Lucas recognizes his prequels are "Hamburger Helper" and, as for him having written three trilogies... nonsense. The complaints are not at all puerile. They are real and these prequels are crap. I did not know before I lined up for the prequels that the director of the original trilogy would produce something this horrible.

oscar jubis

05-23-2005, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by cinemabon
Many of the criticisms I've read on this site are a bit puerile.

I'd be more edifying for the reader if you'd single out one or more of the criticisms and offered a counter-argument.

For all he had to accomplish, Lucas' work has paid off, and quite handsomely. He is commercially successful... Arguing over how it would have been better is pedantic.

Commercial success doesn't always equal artistic merit. This is not the Lucas Fan Club. This is where smart, eloquent people like you exchange opinions. To dismiss criticism of any film as being "pedantic" runs counter to what I perceive to be filmwurld's purpose.

You know what kind of film (very commercial) is showing before you buy the ticket. Go see your French film and leave Lucas to those of us with simple minds content to brandish lightsabers with our next door neighbors

The fact that a film is "very commercial" yields no clues as to whether I will enjoy it or not. I think that applies to most people. Most folk don't make their minds up about a film until they've seen it, not "before you buy the ticket".
Uh...you don't like French movies, cinemabon?

stevetseitz

05-24-2005, 05:22 AM

I haven't seen it yet.

I recently watched the DVD of "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" in preparation for seeing the new "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" movie sometime soon.

What struck me is how BAD the two prequel films have been compared to the original trilogy (yes, even "Jedi") The over use of CGI has ruined any sense of tangible realism that was so cool about the original "Star Wars" movies had. Who cares about some world that is so advanced and technologically superior if it's not believable? Give me goofy droids and cardboard cut-outs of a dewback in the dusty streets of the original Mos Eisley compared to the smooth CGI blah of the new films any day. Give me model tie-fighters screaming across the screen.

The only actors worth watching are Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid and they are wasted on bad dialogue. Watching any actor being forced to react to totally artificial surroundings is just wrong. Give me a giant soundstage with a real set compared to these phony, unoriginal CGI worlds. Or how about combining great CGI with great location shooting a la Peter Jackson with his astounding "Lord of the Rings" trilogy?

Lucas tries to make far too many lame references to classic films. When Anakin searches for his mother, the shot of him dropping into the Tuskan raider camp is straight out of "The Searchers". George, we know you grew up on Ray Harryhausen, we just don't want to pay $8.00 of 2005 money for effects and shots from the 50's and 60's. Ray's effects were state of the art for the time. Be so good as to give us the same and truly honor the man (as you did in 1977.)

Why does a levitating cart need a beast of burden to pull it!?! Don't just do something because it's "different" or because you saw it in some other film. Don't give license to CG animators to ruin your film.

Anyone else think about how lame the Jedi became in the first two films. They lost all their aura of mystery and coolness. We have Mace Windu and Yoda looking constipated...sitting on their duffs while the Republic falls apart and all they can do is make cryptic pronouncements. The Jedi council maybe a model of Republic diversity but it also appears to be somewhat of a freakshow. "Young paduan learner, Master Bearded Lady and Master Dog-faced boy wish to teach you the ways of the force."

The Jedi seem extremely myopic and fallible not to mention somewhat weak. Getting ambushed and surrounded and beat up by a bunch of droids with blasters? They are sort of like samurai in a town full of gunslingers, now if they had some of them "Sith" powers....

It all makes Han Solo's pronouncement that, "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." seem just about right on.

cinemabon

05-24-2005, 12:26 PM

I do like French cinema, I was being tawdry.

But come now gentlemen, you weren't really thinking you found something deep and artistic about the original trilogy, did you?

This is popcorn, pure self indulgent whiz bang ride on the roller coaster stuff. There is no art other than painting with CGI, is there? I do enjoy seeing what I consider to be state of the art special effects, but your criticisms that there should be something more is wasted on this fluff. No one is expecting Lucas to actually write something profound for "Star Wars," are they? I'm curious. I know that both of you are scholarly (Anduril and Oscar) but you weren't expecting to be overwhelmed by the acting or the great dialogue, were you?

I don't get it.

Where is the great acting in the first film? Mark Hamill looking at the sun set? Or how about his reaction to seeing his "parents" the adults who raised him, as charred remains. He looks down. Great direction! Go back and look at it again. It's awful! Or how about when Leia finds out she's the daughter of Darth Vadar in "Return of the Jedi" ("Yeah, I've always known...") It sucks! Just before Hamill went to film "I am your father!"; Lucas was the one who told him about his real father to get the reaction he wanted, not the director! Lucas was on set that day! Only he and Hamill knew! No one else, until James Earl Jones did the dubbing. He said so last Thursday on Charlie Rose.

It seems to be that a small elitist (and I am not implying anyone at this site, God forbid!) group of critics (i. e. The New Yorker Magazine for one) has chosen this time to find the second trilogy god awful. WHY? They've always been awful. But ask my son why he wants to go. Not for the acting or the art, but to see all the cool spaceships blowing up! Star Wars is the NASCAR of the film circuit! Let's face it, folks. This is a tempest in a teacup.

Johann

05-24-2005, 01:01 PM

The original films were not high-brow by any means but I think what fans are griping about is the contrasts between the style of the 2 trilogies.

You could sense something exciting in A New Hope.
It had some real power- "The Force" was intrigingly mysterious, Darth Vader was fearsome (what a great movie villian), we knew instantly who the good guy was and why he had to "rise up".
The movie ends with a bang, justice reigns (at least until ESB) and everybody went home satisfied.

It's a human thing- we all understood the drama that was playing out in some "galaxy far away".

The new films seem to be a quasi-continuation of that drama.
The original films had actors in fur suits, rubber masks and models on wires. Now, if those things gave the movies such interesting qualities, then why are we getting CGI overload?

You know why. Because Lucas is ILM. He cannot have his toyshop be the vanguard of sfx and not incorporate it into his vision. Special effects were always lacking for George. He always wanted something like ILM to make the movies he wants.
But if these new Star Wars films are the movies he wants...

I hate to say it, but Lucas has kinda destroyed his own creation.

I know there are Star Wars fans out there who place so much meaning on those first 3 films that they could have come up with awesome ideas/characters for the first three episodes that would have enhanced the myth, placated fans and elevated Star Wars even further in movie lore/Sci-Fi history.
There are fans who've made little Star Wars films on the internet that are better (in spirit AND story) than the mega-dollar recent ones.

How is this possible? Easy. "It's my Canterbury Tales".

anduril

05-24-2005, 01:12 PM

Cinemabon... Although the acting and dialogue weren't spectacular in the first, they were more consistent and better, particularly Harrison Ford as Han Solo stood out. But, there was also a certain chemistry between the three leads: Harrison Ford, Mark Hammill, and Carrie Fisher. There was a real sense of fun and warmth in the way they delivered even their campiest lines. By contrast, Hayden, Ewan, and Natalie have developed zero-chemistry and look like they resent being on screen with each other.

But, aside from that, the first movies WERE profound in the sense that Lucas employed the classic archetypes of good story-telling: good vs. evil, light vs. dark, friendship, family, and so on. He didn't muddy them up or compromise those archetypes and he certainly didn't make his first movies blatant political commentary in the same way he's done this time:

Anakin (aka Vader): Either you are with me or you are against me.

Obi-Wan: Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.

Me: [Laughter]

Later on while Anakin and Obi-Wan are dueling...

Obi-Wan: The Jedi are good, Anakin.

Anakin: From my perspective, they are evil.

Obi-Wan: Then you are truly lost.

Me: [Gut-wrenching Laughter]

Seriously, cinemabon, find me scenes in the originals that are this asinine.

Johann

05-24-2005, 01:17 PM

Hard to love a movie that calls George Bush a Sith Lord, eh?

anduril

05-24-2005, 01:43 PM

It should be annoying for anyone... no matter what they're political stripes or views on George Bush. I half expected a cheap MAD magazine ad with George Bush's head superimposed on Anakin's.

I find it all the more humorous by the subsequent dialogue, which completely contradicts Obi-Wan's claim. Indeed, throughout these movies, the Jedi are incompetent nikumpoops, worthy of their left-leaning writer. They can't see evil when it is right on top of them; rather than fight it, they align with it for most of these movies; their "religion" is turned into a science and their aphorisms are dumb. They are completely incompetent. One really does learn from these movies that there is very little admirable in the Jedi Order, which in turn only enhances my appreciation for the originals. Because in them, Luke rejects the lie of Obi-Wan, disobeys the surviving remnants of this corrupt Jedi Order, and allows "emotional attachments" to guide him in saving his friends and seeking the redemption of his father.

anduril

05-24-2005, 01:46 PM

Do you really want Darth Vader reduced to a carciature of George Bush?

Johann

05-24-2005, 01:48 PM

I agree. The "zap" has gone...

All blame can be placed neatly, gently, squarely at the Nike-clad feet of GEORGE LUCAS.

I think if you cornered Ewan McGregor at a pub after 2 pitchers of Newcastle he would lean over to your ear and say "Some days were shite, brother- some days were absolute shite".

stevetseitz

05-24-2005, 03:02 PM

>>But come now gentlemen, you weren't really thinking you found something deep and artistic about the original trilogy, did you?<<

How about something visionary? The same George Lucas that crafted "THX-1138" gave us "A New Hope". A very different George Lucas gave us these awful prequels. (Instead of twiddling his thumbs for a decade Lucas SHOULD have based his next three movie cycle on Timothy Zahn's excellent series which begins shortly after "Return of the Jedi" ends)

The original "Star Wars" accomplished something that none of the other films did. It succeeded in dropping the audience in a completely alien universe without trying to explain itself. We spend the first 10 minutes following the exploits of two "droids" for crying out loud! Who had ever heard of droids? Using Kurosawa's approach in "The Hidden Fortress" we stay with these farmer/peasant/droids and are slowly immersed in the "Star Wars" world.

Admittedly, there are cheesy moments in the original three films. But the basic plot and story are operatic. We have a gifted young farm boy from the sticks, who falls into an intergalactic struggle to save a princess and destroy a weapon of terrible power. All this and he finds out his worst enemy is his father!

What do we have for plotlines in the new films? We have a TRADE EMBARGO? GOOFY UNDERSEA ALIENS AS COMEDY RELIEF? A KID WHO CAN'T ACT PLAYING A YOUNG DARTH VADER? A TOTALLY IMPLAUSIBLE LOVE STORY BETWEEN A SENATOR AND A JEDI? AN APPARENTLY IMPOTENT JEDI COUNCIL? POLITICAL INTRIGUE ABOUT AS COMPELLING AS WATCHING C-SPAN?

Hayden Christensen makes Mark Hammill look like Sir Laurence Olivier. The bad dialogue and wooden acting are amplified by the lack of tangible environments for the actors to work in. Too much CGI, not enough vision. Every time I hear Lucas talk about scenes he could only "imagine" filming in 1977. George, most people couldn't imagine the "Star Wars" that you DID film. That's why you made so much money.

The reliance onCGI is like Spielberg going back and remaking "Jaws" because he fixed the robotic shark.

cinemabon

05-24-2005, 10:00 PM

I look at the first trilogy and I see the innocence in myself. I was very naive in 1977. True I was fresh out of film school (1976) with visions of Truffaut and Louis Malle in my brain (See? I did like French cinema... when I was hip). There was a simplicity that attracted me to Star Wars. I likened it at the time to my attraction to Westerns. There was the good guy, dressed in white, brandishing a sword, and rescuing the girl in distress. There was the bad guy, looking like he had a skull for a face, and obviously, dressed in black. Even the music was uplifting. Williams wrote a march theme to open the film, something that hadn't been done in thirty years. Taken on its own, the very first Star Wars film was wonderful.

But life moves on for all of us... as it did for Lucas. He was very fortunate to have met John Dykstra. Dykstra is the man who invented the motion capture camera and was the person really responsible for making the original Star Wars look so fantastic. Without the multipass camera, we would not be talking about Star Wars today. That revolutionary event opened up doors in Hollywood that were practically closed shut in 1977. I know. I was there. The state of the art in special effects was Ray Harryhausen. He actually had a film released the same year as Star Wars called Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (try to put that up on a marquee). His whole film was stop motion. Dykstra's detailed models flying about with precise moves put them all to shame. When Douglas Trumbull, special effects supervisor for Close Encounters saw the rushes, they liked to shit a brick! They scrambled around to try to make Close Encounters up to the bar Star Wars set. It wasn't Lucas responsible for those incredible effects. There were men trying for years to make special effects better. Those two pioneers were the first to make important breakthroughs that year.

Personally, I love the CGI in Star Wars. It's as beautiful to look at as a James Gurney painting of Dinotopia. However, George sort of lost his innocence when he had to go on telling the story. For me, I felt betrayed when Vadar turned out to be DAD! I gave up on the story from that point on and concentrated on just the ride after that.

There's no point to prove. You are correct if you believe the story has gotten so convoluted no aspect of the original simplistic story remains. However, Sith did end on that moment of hope... so that future audiences, having watched one, two and three, are left having something to hope for in episode four. Having hope is more important sometimes than having it your way, i.e. George Bush. I'm counting the days left...

oscar jubis

05-25-2005, 01:32 AM

I relate to Cinemabon's use of the word "popcorn" to characterize the series. After all, the inspiration is "Flash Gordon" and other such serials. I enjoyed them as such, but perhaps, at age 16 when the first one came out, I was too old to love them. Maybe it has nothing to do with age, I love LOTR and I was almost forty when the first one came out. I also enjoy animated films and classic Westerns more than any of the Star Wars movies. Of them, Attack of the Clones is the one I simply didn't like. I am encouraged by reviews of the latest installment and plan to watch it with my son soon and post a comment.

stevetseitz

05-25-2005, 02:47 AM

>>When Douglas Trumbull, special effects supervisor for Close Encounters saw the rushes, they liked to shit a brick!<<

"Close Encounters" suffered because of the tremendous special effects benchmark set by "Star Wars" but it had it's own style and grace. One of my favorite scenes in "Close Encounters" had NO special effects. The air traffic controller scene was pure genius in terms of building suspense and it confirms one of the the basic aesthetic truths: "less is more".

stevetseitz

05-25-2005, 02:53 AM

Oh and a response to those who claim that the new "Star Wars" film is some sort of political commentary..... This didn't start with "Sith"

George Lucas has always held that "Star Wars: A New Hope" was, to some degree, allegorical to Vietnam (which, sadly, still seems to be the defining event for a generation.)

In the first "Star Wars" it was the "empire" (the United States with vastly superior technology and firepower) vs. the "rebels". (the North Vietnamese Communists). The analogy falls flat under scrutiny.

His muddled and loose interpretation of history notwithstanding, Lucas has made some brilliant films.

He is from a generation who mistakenly believed and probably still believes the idealistic and false concept that "War is the ultimate evil." Now, don't misunderstand. I'm no "hawk" and I support diplomatic and economic solutions whenever possible. However, to make a sweeping claim that war is never required is unrealistic and myopic considering the concepts and principles fought for in conflicts like the Revolutionary war, the Civil War and WWII. The fact remains that THE biggest killer in the 20th century was democide (death by one's own government) at a rate of 4 to 1 versus war.

Johann

05-25-2005, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by cinemabon
Personally, I love the CGI in Star Wars. It's as beautiful to look at as a James Gurney painting of Dinotopia.

Even though my gripes about Star Wars are about the wierd path the saga has recently taken and child-pandering, the visuals are amazing. Lucas cannot be accused of lack of quality in the visuals. He's aiming for art. But with all the other unsettling aspects of the new trilogy, the sfx do not make up for weak story, bad dialogue and the conspicuous detached ambiguity of it all.

anduril

05-25-2005, 02:21 PM

I'm surprised by everybody's love for the visuals. I don't find them impressive at all because they simply do nothing... rather, in many cases, they detract from the presentation and make it look more ridiculous. LOTR impressed me; The Matrix impressed me; the original Star Wars trilogy impressed me. The prequel trilogy does not impress me.

anduril

05-25-2005, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by stevetseitz
Oh and a response to those who claim that the new "Star Wars" film is some sort of political commentary..... This didn't start with "Sith"

George Lucas has always held that "Star Wars: A New Hope" was, to some degree, allegorical to Vietnam (which, sadly, still seems to be the defining event for a generation.)

In the first "Star Wars" it was the "empire" (the United States with vastly superior technology and firepower) vs. the "rebels". (the North Vietnamese Communists). The analogy falls flat under scrutiny.

His muddled and loose interpretation of history notwithstanding, Lucas has made some brilliant films.
I have no doubt that this is true but the political commentary was less explicit. It's not like Darth Vader intones, "I am not a crook!" Or, you get some clear Kennedy assassination reference or such stuff. Sure, "evil empire" v. "rebels" can have many applications and indeed Reagan coopted it for his own agenda but the movies themselves were less explicit and less overtly political, at least from my standpoint.

Johann

05-26-2005, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by anduril
I'm surprised by everybody's love for the visuals. I don't find them impressive at all because they simply do nothing

I think you mean they do nothing for "Star Wars"- the first films.

The new special effects are too busy, too complicated. The original films had lots of sfx, but nowhere near the kind of dense caterwauling that Lucas has given us since '99.

But dropped into some OTHER space movie?
The visuals are astounding- especially the space battles with various ships/vehicles.
They just don't exactly jive with the Star Wars (1977) universe.
They seem out of place somehow...the cheaper FX of the original movies proved less is more. It worked wonderfully.
(so sez me)

I'll take a giant rubber Jabba over a CGI Gungan anyday..
Even R2-D2 has a living person inside.

stevetseitz

05-26-2005, 02:28 PM

>>I'm surprised by everybody's love for the visuals. I don't find them impressive at all because they simply do nothing... rather, in many cases, they detract from the presentation and make it look more ridiculous. LOTR impressed me; The Matrix impressed me; the original Star Wars trilogy impressed me. The prequel trilogy does not impress me.<<

I am in 100% agreement. The thing about good CGI is that it is set-up by a general visual fabric in the film. "The Matrix" was a very dark movie to begin with. Lots of deep shadows and controlled lighting allowed the CGI to fit right in with the environment.

"Lord of the Rings" had a consistent visual scheme and made tremendous use of miniatures and actual sets. It set a new standard for CGI.

The original "Star Wars" series was amazing in terms of the advancements in visuals even between films...but back then Lucas kept a tight grip on how he wanted things to look. Ships, blasters, sets and equipment looked "used" it looked like something in the real world. Lucas used gun camera footage to make dogfights more realistic even though movement in space is very different from movement in an atmosphere. Lucas made the Millenium Falcon "peel out" like a suped-up muscle car because it was cool, totally unrealistic, but cool.

The new films rely on CGI and yet the smooth, futuristic visuals do little to help the audience suspend their disbelief. We seem to sense that the actors are clueless about their surroundings and standing in front of green screens for the most part. I must admit that a few parts in "Clones" were visually amazing: The asteroid chase was great. The final battle between the clone army and the droids was excellent particularly when the Federation ship crashed sending huge amounts of dust and smoke into the air. Lastly, the short lightsaber battle between Anakin and Dooku was gorgeous.

Raoul

05-26-2005, 05:32 PM

What the hell is everyone bitching about? Revenge of the Sith was cool. End of story.

You won't catch me defending the acting or dialogue, they plainly sucked, but the story! oh the story...

Aniken the powerful, who watched his mother die in his own arms less than one movie ago, master pilot and swordsman with a troubled soul who's raison d'etre is about to cause him the same kind of pain and rage that made him throw down against a legion of sand people to blow off some steam. He can feel it happening.

The Jedi counsil, who took him away from his mother and tatouine before he even had any pubic hair to be their "chosen one" and restore order to the galaxy, won't make him a master because they're afraid of him. They can feel that that boy ain't right, and they don't quite know what to do about it. These are strange times in the realm of the Jedi.

The Villains: The Chancellor turning Emperor who can barely keep his load together when he's watching little Annie try this revenge thing (all the kids are doing it...). He even makes sure that the kid knows what's going on.
General Greivous - the evil warlord supreme. MAN was he ever cool lookin'!

How about Obi Wan? Conflict drives story and here you've got Obi Wan - a deciple himself turned master to a promising prodigy before he was ready. The whole mess is on his shoulders and his own deciple, who he had worked so hard to train and was unable to contain, has to be killed. NOW. And even that isn't going to make it better.
On any given Sunday, Anniken could have beat his old master, but Obi Wan fought hard stayed disciplined and came out on top. In the end, though, he couldn't do what he had to. He couldn't finish the job. It would take three more movies.

Revenge of the Sith will eventually be hailed by geeks everywhere as the greatest Star Wars movie. It won't be for the CGA, it won't be for the dialogue and it CERTAINLY won't be for the acting.
The story on its own isn't even enough to imortalize it. Episode III was timely.

There is a disturbing sense of fear and loathing everywhere a long time ago in that galaxy far far away, much like right here at home. The good guys are falling in to the classic traps. The disturbances in the force are becoming so frequent that they barely get noticed anymore. The power of the Dark Side is strong.

BTW: all of the SW movies had bad dialogue. It's par for the course.

Raoul
Mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment.

anduril

05-26-2005, 07:34 PM

Then you are truly lost, Raoul.

Raoul

05-26-2005, 11:58 PM

That's your Obi Wan Kenobe impression? You rushed it.
What's so wrong with likeing this movie? It will end up being one of the greatest cinematic epics of all time.

I think I'm going to go and dig out my Empire Strikes Back tape.

Raoul
Who Does or does not. There is no try.

Johann

05-27-2005, 01:13 PM

In the back of my mind I remember how much a fan of Fellini George is, and how Fellini's quote of "Filming your fantasies...they will be seen and accepted as real events" has been taken to heart.

There is truth to the notion that repeat viewings will make you see the arc, see the "layout". It may be that fans are not quite willing yet to accept George's fantasies for the new films.
It may be that we'll need some time (maybe years) to actually come to terms with his vision for the 6-film saga.

But my gut says no:

Jar-Jar- I will never warm to this insulting creation

The rat-tails on the Jedi's- one step away from fucking mullets!

The lines- lines in Star Wars have always been lame. Fine.
But why the fuck didn't he tweak the dialogue like he tweaked the sfx? I'm sure Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford wouldn't have minded stepping into a vocal booth to alter some things. Then he could have started fresh, with sharp, believeable dialogue.
I cannot watch the scene in AOTC when Anakin is by the fire with Padme, lookin' for luv- Cringe-Inducing to the max.

The corniness- and I don't mean popcorn. There is an underlying ridiculousness to this "intense space-opera saga".
That's why the original films were so ripe for parody with Spaceballs.

I just read yesterday that Hayden Christensen is retiring from acting. I wonder why? Could it be that the drubbing he got (and still gets) from the press over his "acting" has soured his drive? Or is it that Lucas drove him away from the biz? All those days in front of blue/green screens musta really put the zap on his head.

Raoul

05-27-2005, 02:12 PM

What a curse. One of the greatest epic tales of all time soiled by the number one contender for campiest, cheezyest dialogue.
It's not fair.

But, lo and behold, I have the answer.

Auteurship.
Lucas doesn't realize that he can't do it all himself. The man is a great director with a wonderful immagination. He's not a writer. He's got the formula down: Timely conflict, start scenes with action in progress... there are some GREAT script moments from the StarWars films. But the dialogue ! URRGhggh.

Problem 1 with that toilet paper dialoge is what Mckee calls "Writing on the nose". The actors basically talk to the camera and tell the audience what's going on. From Lucas' POV, I'm sure that this is the quickest way to make his story move, and all will be forgiven in the excitement of the next lightsaber battle. Unfortunately...

"I won't leave you, Master..."

"From my point of view, the Jedis are evil."

These are things that an actor has to say without saying. That takes good writing. He blew the budget on the SFX.

Christiensen hanging up his gloves is an easy one: He's a shitty actor. Proof: If he was any kind of actor, he wouldn't have taken that STUPID fucking role.
Good Actors are good actors because they play good parts. A good movie character is a collaboration between a writer and an actor. The Greats understand this and don't waste their time on the Anniken Skywalkers of the movie world.

Having lamented at length, it bares mentioning that there are some terriffic lines in the StarWars films that don't quite make up for the trash, but certainly bare mentioning.

"We're goin' in, we're goin' in full throttle."

Yoda's a goldmine.

"Do, or do not. There is no try."
"Always looking to the future, he is. Never his mind on where he is (hmm?)what he is doing,"
(it's the delivery that sold that one. Frank Oz is a great actor. Why? He picks good roles, like Yoda.)

And finally, as Luke's X-wing takes off from the Degoba System to go and face Vader, training or no training.

OBI WAN
That boy is our last hope.

YODA
No. There is another.

Johann

05-28-2005, 12:28 PM

Saw it yesterday with a buddy. We shared a huge chonger, smuggled in colas and sat three rows back from the front.
The first ten minutes are an extravaganza of digital effects.

The way the camera darts around, diving and soaring, it shows why Anakin is "the best starpilot in the galaxy".
And so does the awesome sequence where he pilots that "half-ship", aiming to land on the tarstrip: coming in "hot". It's pulse-pounding, exciting.

I hestitate to say Lucas has "returned to form". He's certainly changed enough/added enough to satisfy some die-hards. Some scenes you gotta like:

- the lightsabre duel between Obi-Wan and Grievous. Grievous has four (4!) lightsabres in his "collection" and he wields them like a machine posessed- especially when he goes into to full rotation mode on all four mecha-arms. The sabres' ripping up the floor was wicked shit! Yet Obi-Wan manages to defeat the General somehow... That buzzsaw, circular vehicle Grievous escapes in is one of the best contraptions I've ever seen in any movie. What the hell is that thing?!

-Yoda demonstrating why he is a true Jedi master. I'm so glad Lucas has made Yoda more than just a green old puppet that walks with a cane. At the least with these new films we get some more background/depth on Yoda and other lore

-the scene where the glass breaks at Grievous' station and he's sucked out into space. Grievous releases a grappling hook and swings back to the hull- that brief shot was amazing: his metal feet slam on the outer hull with great sound effects. And the angle of the shot was perfect. More shots like that please!

-The wookiee planet. Those scenes were far too short. I could have watched a whole movie about Chewbacca's planet. Great sfx abound; the background/ environment shots were breathtaking, don't forget the "planetary" shots of moons and suns, the tense atmosphere- this is the Star Wars I remember...

-and the lava duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan. Excellence.
"You were my brother!" Darth Vader rises...
Like a Phoenix from the ashes...

Overall I agree with all the pre-hype. This is the best installment of all six films. I am more impressed and sympathetic with Lucas than I have been in a long, long time ago, in a mindset far, far away.

I was very satisfied with his "wrap-up" of the saga, even though I could go on and on about the things that could have been different.

That's all folks. They're the films Lucas created, and they're the films we have to live with.

stevetseitz

05-28-2005, 01:52 PM

Raoul

I agree with your statements about what was/is wrong with prequels as well as what was right about them and the previous three films.

Yes there is too much Expositional dialogue.

I can't blame Christiensen for taking the role of Annakin. Even knowing how BAD the movies were to be I'd have taken the role. Dialogue has always been shaky, but it's the quality of the actors and the environment you put them in that makes the difference. Acting in front of green screen simply isn't a task most actors can realistically accomplish.

Rebel base: "Luke you've turned off your targeting computer. What's wrong?"

Luke: "Nothing. I'm alright."

added segment:

Rebel base: "Don't play with our lives you damn, jedi wanna-be hot-dog #&*!@!"

HorseradishTree

05-28-2005, 03:48 PM

Things I learned from this turkey *spoilers, probably*:

-Jedi like to point their fingers in a two-pronged fashion in order to look cool.

-Sith like to hiss like cats.

-If the Sith hadn't noticed, Force Lightning doesn't seem to ever do them much good.

-The Star Wars Universe officially harbors the "death due to loss of will to live" prospect.

-War!

-Clones are still stupid.

-Obi-Wan is senile, as in the original trilogy he doesn't recognize C-3PO or R2-D2.

-Battle Droids are the new Looney Tunes.

I didn't even mention the dialogue. At least it was unintentionally hilarious. Not my Star Wars.

stevetseitz

05-28-2005, 04:41 PM

Hmm, maybe I'm Sith, I like to hiss AT cats. and Force Lightning NEVER does me any good.

cinemabon

05-28-2005, 05:43 PM

It'll be interesting to see if this film has staying power. Granted, there's nothing opening this weekend that's likely to knock Star Wars off the number one throne. I'd like to go back and see it again. That first time I was so overwhelmed at times, I failed to see all the faults. Some people describe "Sith" as a movie that starts and ends well, but oh that long, long middle.

*******SPOILERS**********

I just found it interesting that someone could get midiclorians to do anything! Funny that only a Sith Lord can get them to form a baby, isn't it? Must be a dark thing...

Raoul

05-29-2005, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
-Obi-Wan is senile, as in the original trilogy he doesn't recognize C-3PO or R2-D2.
I thought about that when I cracked the original tapes shortly after watching ROTS. (Ha! "ROTS" HAAA!)

Droids are pretty forgetable, and he had more important things to focus on. Would you remember your old toaster fifty or sixty years later?

I found that the modern trillogy added a layer of depth to the original trillogy. There were so many things that Obi Wan wanted to tell Luke, but couldn't. "Darth is your Father" was only the tip of the iceberg.

When R2 D2 finds his old master in "A New Hope", Obi-Wan tells Luke "I don't seem to recall ever owning a droid..."
He knew damned well that he had owned droids in the good ol' days, but he didn't want to let on. At the time, there was no point in rushing Luke in to Jedi training and it seemed like Obi Wan was intentionally not exciting him so as to keep him on Tatouine with Uncle Owen for a while, ease him in to the process.
Naturally, that would make for a boreing Space Epic, so The Empire offed the Mom & Pop farming opperation to create some drama and urgency.

Bonus droid recollection question: Wouldn't Darth Vader have remembered 3po? He did make him...

HorseradishTree

05-30-2005, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Raoul
Droids are pretty forgetable, and he had more important things to focus on. Would you remember your old toaster fifty or sixty years later?
When R2 D2 finds his old master in "A New Hope", Obi-Wan tells Luke "I don't seem to recall ever owning a droid..."
He knew damned well that he had owned droids in the good ol' days, but he didn't want to let on. At the time, there was no point in rushing Luke in to Jedi training and it seemed like Obi Wan was intentionally not exciting him so as to keep him on Tatouine with Uncle Owen for a while, ease him in to the process.
Bonus droid recollection question: Wouldn't Darth Vader have remembered 3po? He did make him...

In response to your bonus, I don't think Darth ever had a scene with the droids in the original trilogy.

However, for Obi-Wan, after seeing young Anakin construct C-3PO and referring to R2 by name and utilizing his abilities in the third film, I just can't buy it.

stevetseitz

05-30-2005, 02:58 AM

>>"I don't seem to recall ever owning a droid..."<<

This doesn't necessarily mean Alzheimers but could indicate some form of demetia. Perhaps exposure to Midichlorians over the years is a factor tat should be studied... or are these carefully parsed Jedi word tricks? Is this the exact quote from "A New Hope" is so it's not really a lie...just an omission.

tabuno

05-30-2005, 01:56 PM

I was forced to go see Episode III before I wanted to, my wife insisted, and so I had to wait 35 minutes in line (something that doesn't happen that often where I'm from):

cinemabon "One can clearly see the high moral ground in Revenge of the Sith, and the anthropologist at work. In Anakin, we see the slow undoing of how performing one’s duty can lead to acts of evil. From the earliest days of man through the Nazi’s and even in Iraq, “only following orders” can lead to disastrous consequences. So Anakin, following the orders of his Emperor, and trying to save the Republic from the evil forces trying to tear it apart, commits unspeakable acts of brutality, and in the end, comes to typify how a good soldier can easily become one of the most despicable character."

tabuno: I didn't pick up so much as following orders and Nazi and Iraq as turning good into evil as part of an insidious process of wanting something so bad (wife's life) and one would make a deal with the devil like Faust. Even in a telesivion series as Charmed, about three young female witches, it's pretty common knowledge that one cannot cast spells for one's own benefit. I didn't really get any heavy dose of sociological and cultural transformation with the direct interaction of Anakin and the Emperor even though the attributes of cultural changes surrounded the events big time.

cinemabon "The lightsaber duels (there are two simultaneously) at the end are so well choreographed that they rival some of the best swordplay in any film."

tabuno: I wasn't too impressed by the lightsaber duels, in fact when I watched Elecktra and the making of the movie on the DVD, the actual physical duels were more impressive, especially without the use of the stunt doubles. In Episode III, were are more tintillated by light and long shots that avoid giving much in the way of close up fighting. Too much special effects.

tabuno

05-30-2005, 02:03 PM

Johann: "It was Star Wars- we saw the screen crawl! We heard the Williams theme!
But it wasn't Star Wars. It was something else.
It didn't have the feel of the original films.
Our cinematic memories were more robust than this.
Star Wars was more entertaining than this.
Star Wars was of a time and of a spirit.
Lucas made that film because he felt he had to make it.
Did he feel he had to make the new trilogy? I don't think so."

Tab Uno: I would imagine that it would immensely difficult to create an epic space opera over the decades that would capture the original magic, even the people who first saw it have grown up from being children to adults and the children now are more sophisticated. I can only limply justify what Lucas has done by pointing out that the lead up, the first three episodes is about a different generation of characters where the empire has become something of a Isaac Amimov's "Foundation" concrete world (this is what went through my mind when I saw the gigantic cityscapes), while the last three episodes is more about the rebellion and freedom, another generation. Thus from stuffy, stilted to bold and daring, this space opera epic spans decades of change and sociological differences.

tabuno

05-30-2005, 02:11 PM

anduril: "Lucas's reinvented Star Wars universe is too busy, too absurd, too campy, too superficial, too devoid of accessible characters to truly enjoy."

tabuno: I can't agree with anduril's overall total assessment of Episode III as the "worst collapse in creative talent" yet I can understand anduril's observation of this reinvented universe. What Episode III seems to do is separate itself into two quit different movies, the first half of the movie is what anduril describes as too busy, too aburd, too campy...Lucas has tried but unsuccessful to recapture the original Star Wars universe and turned it into an imitation of itself with many of the small plot scenes and dialogue just tidbits of the original Star Wars but without heart.

anduril: "So, having witnessed the implosion of Star Wars, I recently came to a new perspective on the movies. Could it be that the prequel trilogy is a reflection of our contemporary culture while the original trilogy is reflection of our positive potential? Moreover, though I doubt it was Lucas' intent, perhaps everything that is "wrong" about the prequels in comparison to the originals are not so much examples of Lucas's creative implosion but rather symptomatic of the collapse of the Republic and its reinvention as the Galatic Empire while everything that is "right" about the originals is symptomatic of the values and worldview that precipitates renewal."

tabuno: I want to grasp at this explanation of the Star Wars saga in this positive light than to believe that this immense undertaking has led all of us down the path of darkness.

tabuno

05-30-2005, 02:15 PM

cinemabon: "Many of the criticisms I've read on this site are a bit puerile. For all he had to accomplish, Lucas' work has paid off, and quite handsomely. He is commercially successful... he has us all dancing on a string, lining up to see his films (whether we agree on their content or not). Arguing over how it would have been better is pedantic. There it is. You know what kind of film (very commercial) is showing before you buy the ticket. Go see your French film and leave Lucas to those of us with simple minds content to brandish lightsabers with our next door neighbors (he has a weak left side)."

tabuno: The boxoffice argument for creative success and quality movie film-making much like Jaws and Titanic and Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2. As with Anakin, one must be carefully of being sucked into the dark side.

tabuno

05-30-2005, 02:22 PM

cinemabon "This is popcorn, pure self indulgent whiz bang ride on the roller coaster stuff. There is no art other than painting with CGI, is there? I do enjoy seeing what I consider to be state of the art special effects, but your criticisms that there should be something more is wasted on this fluff. No one is expecting Lucas to actually write something profound for "Star Wars," are they? I'm curious. I know that both of you are scholarly (Anduril and Oscar) but you weren't expecting to be overwhelmed by the acting or the great dialogue, were you? "

tabuno: Oops. I now know from where you speak. Never mind.

tabuno

05-30-2005, 02:31 PM

cinemabon: "Personally, I love the CGI in Star Wars. It's as beautiful to look at as a James Gurney painting of Dinotopia."

tabuno: Ridley Scott would have wanted to have had such sets for his movie Bladerunner, I imagine. And as I've mentioned previously, the most famous of all science fiction novels yet to be filmed the "Foundation" series by Isaac Asmiov could be well served by the vision that George Lucas has brought to the big screen and the awesome background cityscapes that capture the megalithic enormity of an empire writ large.

tabuno

05-30-2005, 02:38 PM

anduril: I'm surprised by everybody's love for the visuals. I don't find them impressive at all because they simply do nothing... rather, in many cases, they detract from the presentation and make it look more ridiculous. LOTR impressed me; The Matrix impressed me; the original Star Wars trilogy impressed me. The prequel trilogy does not impress me.

tabuno: Episode III visuals have to be taken in the context from which they contribute or detract from the movie. I have had a fondness for complexity and future cityscapes and ever since Ridley Scott's inability to shoot his original cityscapes the way he wanted, I found Episode three and the empire's cityscapes to have the same power, epic magnitude that I have been seeing in my mind for many years. To finally get to see an actual special effects brought to life in the way it fits with the concept of huge, bigness like our mega-cities of today, I find it fascinating. I do believe that the cityscapes have a direct relationship to what is going on in the movie, the whole concept of vastness hugeness, impersonal relationships, power, the conflict between democracy on a huge scale and the need for centralized power to keep it altogether.

tabuno

05-30-2005, 02:47 PM

Raoul: "The story on its own isn't even enough to imortalize it. Episode III was timely. There is a disturbing sense of fear and loathing everywhere a long time ago in that galaxy far far away, much like right here at home. The good guys are falling in to the classic traps. The disturbances in the force are becoming so frequent that they barely get noticed anymore. The power of the Dark Side is strong."

tabuno: I would have to say that it was the "story" in the last half of Episode III that saved the movie for me. Up until that point, the movie was just a mis-mash, splattering of quaint original Star Wars shots that seemed out of place in this pre-Star Wars universe. But the overall transition into darkness was a potent emotional experience as I would gather it would have had a similar impact on many people who experienced it also. The twisting, turning, blackness that fell over the Star Wars legacy must be quite a turn about. The only way out is to go rent the original Star Wars series in order to see the light.

HorseradishTree

05-30-2005, 03:01 PM

Poor tabuno...

tabuno

05-30-2005, 03:03 PM

Johann: "The way the camera darts around, diving and soaring, it shows why Anakin is "the best starpilot in the galaxy".
And so does the awesome sequence where he pilots that "half-ship", aiming to land on the tarstrip: coming in "hot". It's pulse-pounding, exciting."

tabuno: I had the opposite reaction when I saw this opening sequence. I found it over the top, not believable. I couldn't suspend my disbelief in Anakin's abilities this time. There just seemed to be something artificial and forced throughout the whole battle scene even as gorgeous as it was. It just didn't ring true to me and thus the special effects couldn't safe the scene for me. The movie went downhill from there for about the first hour or so.

Johann: "- the lightsabre duel between Obi-Wan and Grievous. Grievous has four (4!) lightsabres in his "collection" and he wields them like a machine posessed- especially when he goes into to full rotation mode on all four mecha-arms. The sabres' ripping up the floor was wicked shit! Yet Obi-Wan manages to defeat the General somehow... That buzzsaw, circular vehicle Grievous escapes in is one of the best contraptions I've ever seen in any movie. What the hell is that thing?! "

tabuno: Again I found this light saber duel to be just the usual more and bigger the better. I didn't see any Obi-Wan abilities to actually outduel Grievous, it seemed as if somehow fate allowed him to get away from four saber that were apparently not well used - there were no scenes of these four light sabers attempting to be used in different angles, lines of attack that any body with any smarts would have done. Again, this wasn't interesting for me. I preferred realism over special effects in this instance.

Johann: "Yoda demonstrating why he is a true Jedi master. I'm so glad Lucas has made Yoda more than just a green old puppet that walks with a cane. At the least with these new films we get some more background/depth on Yoda and other lore."

tabuno: It was nice to see more of Yoda but eventually he is reduced to this small green darting puff-ball in the last light saber duel that seems awkwardly overmatched in scale and size. I found this scene distracting because I couldn't sense any real Yoda force rather special effects for special effects sake without any real finesse.

Johann: "the scene where the glass breaks at Grievous' station and he's sucked out into space. Grievous releases a grappling hook and swings back to the hull- that brief shot was amazing: his metal feet slam on the outer hull with great sound effects. And the angle of the shot was perfect. More shots like that please!"

tabuno: I'm reminded of Alien in the ending scene with the alien being sucked out into space. Somehow I was both impressed and yet resigned to the breaking the glass (they still use such stuff) scene that has been used more times than I care to count. To bad it couldn't have been more original. I imagine everybody should have been killed instantly (at least in 60 seconds and sucked out to explode).

tabuno

05-30-2005, 03:09 PM

Johann: "Overall I agree with all the pre-hype. This is the best installment of all six films. I am more impressed and sympathetic with Lucas than I have been in a long, long time ago, in a mindset far, far away."

tabuno: I may change my mind later, but my intially feeling is that this last film was the best of the six films. As not a fan of space operas, I found this last episode a dramatic opera in the traditional fashion. The themes of good and evil, of torment and loss, betrayal, and granduer are all on display here.

One of the biggest criticisms of this movie that I have is how it had to so neatly tie up the loose ends for Episode IV. I don't think that the audience had to have such a carefully scripted birth scene at the end...not allowing new audiences the pleasure of discovering what was originally a nice twist in later episodes (er earlier episodes - how confusing).

Raoul

05-30-2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by HorseradishTree

In response to your bonus, I don't think Darth ever had a scene with the droids in the original trilogy.

However, for Obi-Wan, after seeing young Anakin construct C-3PO and referring to R2 by name and utilizing his abilities in the third film, I just can't buy it. In "The Empire Strikes Back", 3po spends the later half of the film on Chewbaka's back - including the part when Darth Vader is overseeing the prisoner exchange. They are on screen together.
Having said that, there are other protocall droids that look just like 3po (and other R2 units, for that matter). If Darth did recognize his old toy, it's not likely that he would say anything about it, especially not in that set and setting. It was a relic from his past life.
Re: Obi Wan. I'm pretty sure he just wasn't letting on. Also, C3PO didn't have the fancy metal cover in ep. 1, and there's no telling just how many droids Obi Wan had seen come in and out of his daily operations as a General for the Republic.

Raoul
Out of the Geek Closet since 1999

Johann

05-31-2005, 12:24 PM

Tabuno

The duel between Grievous & Obi-Wan was set up with Grievous proclaiming to be taught the ways of the lightsabre by Dooku.

I found him to have a "line of attack" that was pretty deadly.

It seemed initially to me that Kenobi was outmatched- those 4 sabres were coming at him from 4 different directions- surely he would've gotten at least a nick? But no- the good guy wins.
If there's any complaint about this duel then it's with how lamely Grievous bites the dust. He dies pretty ridiculously considering what we are shown in the scenes immediately prior.

Your complaints about tying up the series are different from mine.

The scenes you cite are pretty brief- the birth sequence was thankfully short. We didn't need any long drawn-out moments of obvious reflection or emotional contemplation. Bang: Luke and Leia are born. Bang: Jedi's go into hiding. Bang: movie over.

This is a more mature episode, more eloquent.
This is the first and only Star Wars DVD I'll buy.

tabuno

05-31-2005, 03:14 PM

Johann: "Your complaints about tying up the series are different from mine. The scenes you cite are pretty brief- the birth sequence was thankfully short. We didn't need any long drawn-out moments of obvious reflection or emotional contemplation. Bang: Luke and Leia are born. Bang: Jedi's go into hiding. Bang: movie over."

tabuno: I want I consider to be one of the biggest blunders in terms of the overall six film series was the Episode III birth scene which when taken in chronological sequence, a decade from now will forever destroy the storyline mystery of Luke and Leia in the fifth and sixth episodes. I feel that in terms of the unfolding of the sequence of these movies and the movie plot, revealing the relationship of Luke and Leia at this point is terrible and too much of a spoiler. It was a delight to discover in the original Star War Series the fumbling about between Luke and Leia and the uncertainty between them as well as Hans Solo, but now with one brief scene in Episode III, this whole process of uncertainty, discovery has been ripped away and replaced with certainty. I can only hope that this blunder will be discovered in time and edited in future version providing the audience only with the potential of the birth of twins and leaving the rest up for the next installment and the next generation of filmgoers who will see the Star Wars saga from one to six.

cinemabon

05-31-2005, 05:09 PM

There's been more postings for Star Wars than most other films on this site, as if we were all a bunch of teens arguing over one of the greatest films of all time. I think it's funny.

My take on R2D2 and C3PO: Obiwan uses droids, just as any person used them. But did he ever OWN one? R2D2 and C3PO were taken to Alderaan and became the property of Senator what's his name... true, Anakin did create C3PO, but would not have recognized him or even bothered to look in his direction. Droids are kind of a sub class of person. I don't regard that part of Star Wars the controversy.

My problem is with Luke. He is raised by Uncle Owen and Aunt Veru, who seem like nice people. They are burned to death by the Empire. Luke doesn't even act angry or upset when Imperial soldiers stop them later that afternoon in Mos Eisley Spaceport (the scene "these aren't the droids you're looking for...") I mean, Obi Wan isn't even holding Luke back, seething with anger or anything. Luke doesn't look the young man motivated by his hatred for the Empire. He's more interested in the new model of speeder. ("Oh, garsh darn it! Where did I put that stupid part!" as if he were the Leave it to Beaver of outer space.) Where's the emotion? Where is the great son of Anakin, the master of over played emotion in the first three films. Luke's role in part four now looks so underplayed as to be ludicrous.

Raoul

05-31-2005, 05:48 PM

I see where you're coming from, but I think that the Jedi warrior hiding inside Luke Skywalker knew better than to blow it right then and there.
You're the guy who lips cops off and gets everyone in trouble, aren't you?

Raoul
... who knows when and how to fuck the police.

Raoul

05-31-2005, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Johann

The duel between Grievous & Obi-Wan was set up with Grievous proclaiming to be taught the ways of the lightsabre by Dooku.

I found him to have a "line of attack" that was pretty deadly.

It seemed initially to me that Kenobi was outmatched- those 4 sabres were coming at him from 4 different directions- surely he would've gotten at least a nick? But no- the good guy wins.
If there's any complaint about this duel then it's with how lamely Grievous bites the dust. He dies pretty ridiculously considering what we are shown in the scenes immediately prior.

Greivous said that Dooko had 'trained him in the jedi arts', but i don't think he had actual JEDI training, and the kind of command of the force that one associates with a jedi knight like kenobi. Sure, that 4 tier windmill was pretty intimidating, but it was the work of a machine. Obi Wan, using some good ol' organic intelect, knew where to stick his stick to jam the gears.

It was unclear to me at first weather General Greivous was Man or Machine. It wasn't untill the uber-cool samurai style closeup on those two scaley eyes that it became clear. Like his successor Darth Vader, Greivous was once entirely flesh and blood. Now, all that was left was the part that worked the machine and obeyed the Sith Lord.
I, for one, liked the way he went down. Obi Wan got to his weak spot and went in for the kill. Sweet action.

stevetseitz

05-31-2005, 11:20 PM

The droid issue is a dead issue. Look at "The Empire Strikes Back" C3P0 walks by a protocol droid that looks almost identical to himself and it insults him. The only visual difference between C3P0 and the other protocol droid is that the other droid has silver finish as opposed to a golden finish. Protocol droids like these were probably ubiquitous in the "Star Wars" universe. Every ambassador or travelling salesman probably had one.

Luke's rage (or lack thereof) after seeing Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru with the flesh blasted off of their skeletons was not unrealistic.

He never thought of those folks as his real parents and couldn't relate to their humble farming origins. He was saddened by the loss and vowed to fight the empire. Seeing a stormtrooper in the streets wouldn't necessarily have set him off. Stormtroopers were a symbol of the strength of the Empire. A young Luke wouldn't have dared to step to one. He could barely handle some drunk alien a-hole in the Cantina.