DarthParametric Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Sure he does... I'm not exactly sure what it is you mean by that. Sure, the reviews are delivered in a light hearted serial killer manner, but that's merely a traffic generating gimmick much as Lynk might use - it doesn't diminish the validity of the actual underlying analytical commentary. I don't agree with him on all points. I personally think that Ep1 is worse than Ep2 for instance, despite the latter's god-awful romance sub-plot and other issues. But generally speaking, I pretty much concur with all the major flaws from a filmmaking perspective that he highlights in all 3 films. That's not to say the OT is without problems of its own, but when held up side-by-side these pale in comparison to the issues with the prequels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexrd Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I pretty much concur with all the major flaws from a filmmaking perspective that he highlights in all 3 films. Not factual flaws. They are flaws in his opinion (which he passes out as a fact). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Oh...it's *this* article. While GL is himself looking troll-ish at this point [Han shot first, iDon'tGiveA$***!], IIRC he said something to the like that he had never intended Anakin/Vader character to be the ultimate evil, rather the 6 films are about the character in the overall. Rise to prominence, fall to the dark side, redemption. The evil just got played up (which he milked for all its worth I might add). Then again, he said in a rolling stone interview in 2005, concerning the "cult obsession" of Darth Vader, "He's not satan, he just goes to the corner and gets some cigarettes for Satan." GL wanted an actor who had a sort of inner darkness IRL in order to give a better portrayal of the character, Anakin, the way he envisioned the character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Not factual flaws. They are flaws in his opinion (which he passes out as a fact). LOL, wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 LOL I love being able to read people's edits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Not factual flaws. They are flaws in his opinion (which he passes out as a fact).No, I think you'll find there is a fairly wide consensus on the validity of his major claims. You obviously like the prequels and choose to disagree, but just because you don't see the flaws (or choose to ignore them) doesn't mean they aren't there. I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a stab that you like Qui-Gon? Perhaps his role in the prequels would thus be a suitable topic for a mini-debate as a small slice of the larger argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The only awesome thing about Qui-Gon is that it's Liam Neeson. His character was meant to mirror Alec Guinness' Obi-Wan in the OT but failed miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blix Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I know to the younger generation of SW fans who grew up seeing Episodes I - III first are probably going to hold the prequels in a dearer light than the older generation. However, imho the prequel trilogy will always take a backseat to the originals. Sure the original trilogy was basically black and white but it worked for them, the prequels just always seemed off - like how everything seems so fancy and new (with the new computer graphics shoved in every nook & cranny) and then you watch the classics and wonder, "what happened to all of that technology? Did they relapse somehow?" I definitely think the prequels could have been handled differently to make it sync-up more with the originals, but that's more or less a moot point now that TCW seems to be the main canon in Star Wars as far as GL is concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Wait, everyone STOP! We have to spend several minutes talking about galactic politics and debate matters in the senate, blah, blah, blah, blah... "Now this is pod racing!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 LOL I love being able to read people's edits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I can't believe anyone would actually argue with the points the RLM reviews made... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Wait, everyone STOP! We have to spend several minutes talking about galactic politics and debate matters in the senate, blah, blah, blah, blah... If I've a beef with anything, it's that they spent too little time talking about galactic politics in TPM. Who *are* the Trade Federation? Why do they have a massive droid army? How well-known are they? Just what is happening?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 You could say the same thing about many aspects of the original series though, the difference is that we naturally wanted to have every detail explained to us by the time we saw the PT. No, the problem that the PT had in that regard wasn't that it didn't take time to explain things, rather it didn't hold the suspension of disbelief as well as the OT. A lot of what goes on in the OT most people don't question... a lot of what goes on in the PT is questionable, though not all of it... after all the PT wasn't completely bad, just not up to par. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I think the problem was that in the prequels you both didn't know the background or really what was going on in a more general sense, whereas in the OT you were similarly thrown in the deep end with no background info, but instantly recognised who the bad guys were at least. The OT is your simple and classic underdog vs overbearing evil authority figure. The prequels tread a much more nebulous path with all the political machinations going on - there is no real clear good or evil. What was really required to pull off the setting for the prequels was a novel, not a series of 90 minute popcorn movies ostensibly aimed at children (as Lucas constantly claimed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Yeah I was about to post how it was the more black and white nature of the OT that gave it that ability to allow people to accept things more than the PT did, but I also think some of it had to do with the pacing too. It knew where to put the quick moments and where to have the quieter moments and what kind of content needed to be in those moments. The PT on the other hand had horrible pacing throughout the 3 movies, though some moments were better than others. I mean, now we have to sit through the entire extended podrace part of TPM with the home video version... granted that entire podracing sequence is awesome, but it doesn't actually help the pacing of the movie at all... it kills it. Of course, that's if you ignore the whole opening portion of TPM which tries very hard not to be the action packed beginning of ANH and be more mysterious... which was, unfortunately, a mistake, since, going back to the original point, it made people stop and question what the hell was going on instead of making the pace quick enough for the audience to not have time to question it and immediately accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I wouldn't go as far as saying the OT is black and white - there is some nuance there, especially in the actions and motivations of both Han and Lando for example. But I definitely think one of its strengths is that the plot is not overburdened with complexity. There is a lot of stuff going on peripherally, but the central theme is always focused on the struggle of good vs evil. The problem with the prequels is it is pretty much all peripheral stuff with no real solid central plot to tie it all together. You can almost see the the Michael Bay-like thought process of coming up with special effects shots and then hashing a script together around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexrd Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Like? Like TPM not having a protagonist. Or all those arguments about "This movie doesn't do X and Y like movie Z. Therefore it's a flaw.", "I don't understand X, therefore it's a flaw", and all the ad hominem over those who like the movies. No, I think you'll find there is a fairly wide consensus on the validity of his major claims. Even if true, that doesn't make his claims any more valid. You obviously like the prequels and choose to disagree, but just because you don't see the flaws (or choose to ignore them) doesn't mean they aren't there. I like the prequels as much as the originals, and I can see flaws in both of them. That doesn't mean all criticism about them is valid or factual. I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a stab that you like Qui-Gon? Perhaps his role in the prequels would thus be a suitable topic for a mini-debate as a small slice of the larger argument? If you feel so. Although I'm not sure how would that be relevant about RLM's so called "flaws". His character was meant to mirror Alec Guinness' Obi-Wan in the OT but failed miserably. I have to disagree. Both Alec Guiness and Liam Neeson give a great characterization and personality of what a mentor is and should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 @ DP: I just meant that the OT presents a more mythological approach, you know who the badguys are and you know who the good guys are from their very presence. @ Alexrd: I'll make this perfectly clear... I'm not doubting Liam Neeson. No, no, no, NO. I'm doubting Qui-Gon's overall role in TPM. He's an extremely good actor who is working with a very dodgy script, the things about Qui-Gon that are good amounts to his ability as an actor... but that's about it, in the overall scheme of things in everything relating to PT, Qui-Gon is mostly wasted. Hell, they make better use of his in the episode(s) he appeared in The Clone Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthParametric Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Leaving aside the merits of Neeson's acting ability, which is a whole other discussion, the character of Qui-Gon is completely superfluous. One of the problems the Plinkett reviews highlight is that Obi-Wan spends half of TPM sitting on the ship doing absolutely nothing (and the rest of the time being a snarky SOB), and then when we get to AOTC, the training of Anakin and the supposed great friendship that developed between the two over the course of their various adventures is just barely hinted at in a couple of lines of dialogue, rather than actually shown. This is all really just to facilitate Qui-Gon's presence and central role in the first film. What we really needed for the first movie was for the character of Qui-Gon to be excised completely, or at the very least to be given some minor background role (perhaps Obi-Wan could go to him for guidance at some point for a scene or two). The first movie should have had Obi-Wan be much older than he was in TPM, already a Knight and taking on Anakin as his first Padawan right at the start. The movie could then focus on the training of Anakin, with some throwbacks to Luke's training by Yoda in ESB along the way. Trying to mirror Obi-Wan's role in ANH by throwing in Qui-Gon makes no real sense. Lucas keeps prattling on about all 6 films being about Anakin/Vader (I disagree, but we'll run with it for now). That being the case, the movies should be focused on Anakin's development as a character. Obi-Wan's development should be in service to that, not a central focus of the plot, which I gather was the intention, thus having Qui-Gon be some sort of mirror of ANH Obi-Wan (although he was a poor mirror - ANH Obi-Wan's role was the noble sacrifice of the wise old mentor, Qui-Gon's was apparently just to die like a punk). Now granted, the problems with the first movie go far beyond just Qui-Gon's role. The fact that Anakin is a kid is a complete stumbling block and was a very bad choice (arguably the biggest misstep in all 3 prequels). Added to that are all the wasted time in things like the pod race that serve no purpose in driving the plot forward, but exist purely as spectacle and filler content. But by forcing Qui-Gon into the mix, we lose out on an opportunity to see things we are otherwise only ever told about and that are completely glossed over. The movie really gains nothing tangible from his presence in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexrd Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 One of the problems the Plinkett reviews highlight is that Obi-Wan spends half of TPM sitting on the ship doing absolutely nothing (and the rest of the time being a snarky SOB), Ok, how is that a problem? Who is Plinkett to decide that Obi-Wan should be doing whatever he expects he should be doing? The director decided that Obi-Wan should be doing X and Y. That's not a problem. That's how it is. People may like it or not, but that's another matter. It's like saying that I have a problem for having brown eyes, when I should have (due to some imaginary rule created by Plinkett) blue ones. and then when we get to AOTC, the training of Anakin and the supposed great friendship that developed between the two over the course of their various adventures is just barely hinted at in a couple of lines of dialogue, rather than actually shown. So what? It's not shown. The movie focused on showing other things. It's, once again, the imaginary rules of Plinkett. "The movie should be this way. If it's another way, it's a problem or it's wrong." This is all really just to facilitate Qui-Gon's presence and central role in the first film. Maybe because he has a presence and central role in the first film (although Plinkett doesn't want to admit that), Obi-Wan was more in the background, and not the other way around. What we really needed for the first movie was for the character of Qui-Gon to be excised completely, or at the very least to be given some minor background role (perhaps Obi-Wan could go to him for guidance at some point for a scene or two). The first movie should have had Obi-Wan be much older than he was in TPM, already a Knight and taking on Anakin as his first Padawan right at the start. The movie could then focus on the training of Anakin, with some throwbacks to Luke's training by Yoda in ESB along the way. That's a matter of opinion and expectations. Not a problem. Trying to mirror Obi-Wan's role in ANH by throwing in Qui-Gon makes no real sense. To each his own. Lucas keeps prattling on about all 6 films being about Anakin/Vader (I disagree, but we'll run with it for now). That being the case, the movies should be focused on Anakin's development as a character. Just because the saga is the story of Anakin/Vader doesn't mean other characters are not developed, or shouldn't have as much a central role in the movies. When we only had the OT, we perceived it was the story of Luke, but at the same time, we saw the character development of Han. And it was not the case of a secondary character. Now granted, the problems with the first movie go far beyond just Qui-Gon's role. The fact that Anakin is a kid is a complete stumbling block and was a very bad choice (arguably the biggest misstep in all 3 prequels). Anakin was going to be a kid anyway, either 9 or 13/14. In fact, in the book "The Making Of Episode I", Lucas struggled with this problem. If he chooses a 9 years old, the podrace and space battle would loose a bit of credibility, but if he was a 13/14 year old, him leaving his mother wouldn't be as dramatic. He felt that the scene on which he leaves his mother was more important (which in the end turned out to be), so he decided that Anakin was 9. Even though I think Anakin should be a little older, I won't argue that it's a problem. Added to that are all the wasted time in things like the pod race that serve no purpose in driving the plot forward, but exist purely as spectacle and filler content. Or to show Anakin's abilities as a pilot, thus explaining why he could pilot a Naboo starfighter. It's as much spectacle or filler as the Asteroid Chase in TESB, Speeder Bike Chase in ROTJ, etc... But by forcing Qui-Gon into the mix, we lose out on an opportunity to see things we are otherwise only ever told about and that are completely glossed over. The movie really gains nothing tangible from his presence in return. Indeed, we loose that opportunity. But in my opinion we gain the opportunity of seeing other things. By having Qui-Gon we explore not only a completely new character, but at the same time Obi-Wan's too. If it was Obi-Wan alone during most part of the movie, we wouldn't have no character development at all. We also learn details about other views of the Force, how the Jedi works, etc... But again, it's not the movie's fault if people had different expectations. I had a different expectation for TPM when I watched it for first time. Many were not realized, and many were surpassed. But in the end, these are not flaws. Flaws are plot holes, like the Sifo-Dyas subplot not being explained in RotS like it was promised. Or why Leia went to the Rebel Base when she knew the Falcon was being tracked in ANH. But there is no perfect movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 "There is absolutely no element or character in the original trilogy that isn't delineated in stark black and white terms"That's one thing I like about the OT. Good vs. Evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christos200 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 OT better than the PT. Reasons: 1) Except episode 3, that i think that it is the 3 best star wars film after ANH and ESB, the acting in episode 1 and 2 was just horrible. 2) The story is just.... idiotic. I mean the people elect a queen. ( Queen and democracy at the same time? If it was a constitutional monarchy, then okay, but this is unrealistic.). 3) I hated Anakin in episode 1. He should have been older. Also i hated the space battle. 4) In episode 2 there is no friendship between obi-wan and Anakin. I see more fighting between them, than friendship. 5) In all 3 movies the romance dialogues were horrible. 6) GL instead of having a good story, creates a movie based on special effects. Overall i prefer the OT, although i have to say that RoTS is better than RoTJ. And Qui-Gon is the only good character in the PT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 2) The story is just.... idiotic. I mean the people elect a queen. ( Queen and democracy at the same time? If it was a constitutional monarchy, then okay, but this is unrealistic.). Elective Monarchy. It may differ slightly from real world examples by having everyone on the planet vote for the head of state, but it's not completely unheard of. In the prequel trilogy of Star Wars films, the planet Naboo is governed by an elected monarchy. Padmé Amidala, one of the series' main characters, was elected queen at the age of fourteen but was not the youngest ever to reign. She then went on to serve in the senate of the Galactic Republic. A system of elective monarchy was also present in the Galactic Empire. The next Galactic Emperor was, in theory, to be chosen by the Imperial Senate whenever the throne became vacant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90SK Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I remember the hype for Ep2/3 more than the movies themselves. I actually got to see ep2 on opening day, which was crazy and fun. I was wicked into ep2 when it was being hyped and it will always have a special special place in my heart. But... I like ep1 on par with the three originals (and I like those four a LOT) but ep2/3 are still in this like twilight zone of expectation/disappointment where I visualized them more likeable before I actually saw them. I don't agree with the article in the OP at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.