Whatever. I don't take Star Wars personally. But I will be seeing Phantom Menace 3D in the theaters on February 10th. If it isn't successful, they aren't making any more. And I, for one, really want to see cloud city in 3D.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think seeing the Darth Maul fight at the end in 3D would be worth the ticket price. Downside: seeing Jar-Jar Binks in an additional dimension.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe. It really depends on the quality of the 3D conversion. I think there are a lot of people questioning whether it's even possible to have good 3D when it wasn't originally filmed that way.
Kind of disappointing that The Hobbit <edit: Star Trek> is being filmed in 2D due to Mr. Jackson's <edit: Mr. Abrams> artistic sensibilities, only to be converted after the fact for "people who're into that".
I guess we're about to find out if it can be done well. If anyone can, it's Lucas.
posted
I've heard reports of JJ Abrams being incredibly pleased with post-conversion to 3D of his first Star Trek film when trying to determine if post-conversion would be used in the release of his sequel.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dang, I was thinking Star Trek . . . don't know why I said Hobbit. The Hobbit IS filming in HD.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I think seeing the Darth Maul fight at the end in 3D would be worth the ticket price. Downside: seeing Jar-Jar Binks in an additional dimension.
I rather doubt Jar-Jar is capable of more than one dimension.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am ok with not making anymore Star Wars films. Return of the Jedi tied everything up quite nicely.
I WOULD like an Old Republic Movie, though I think it would be best as a TV series. Why Lucas wanted to do the years in between Episodes 3 and 4 and not The Old Republic baffles me. THe Old Republic has a lot more potential and you don't really run the risk of continuity issues.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those are sub-dimensions which fall under the single dimension of obnoxiousness, are they not?
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I am ok with not making anymore Star Wars films. Return of the Jedi tied everything up quite nicely.
I WOULD like an Old Republic Movie, though I think it would be best as a TV series. Why Lucas wanted to do the years in between Episodes 3 and 4 and not The Old Republic baffles me. THe Old Republic has a lot more potential and you don't really run the risk of continuity issues.
Bah, almost none of the Old Republic stuff really interests me.
I've long said that what I want is a Rogue Squadron movie series or better yet, a TV series. It has built-in plots, romances, multiple leading roles, conflict, often intelligent scheming villains rather than the one-dimensional crap we get now. The only problem is the graphics budget for the dog fights would be astronomical, but not unheard of given what Lucas was talking about as the major hurdle to a Star Wars TV show. I think it's doable. And I think casino Sabacc would become the hottest new game in America.
I would also like to see the Thrawn series as a movie trilogy, but they'd have trouble recasting the three or four main roles (Lando, Han, Leia and Luke) and still making people happy, but I think it could work quite well. Thrawn is such a diabolical badass.
Other than that, I'm happy leaving Star Wars alone on the big screen or the little screen.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, what is the reason The Old Republic does not interest you? I think it has a ton of potential. Sith and Jedi at their peak, both training new Force Users? I'd love that. I think it would be easier to do than trying to recast characters.
I suppose now that Mark Hamil is older they technically could do some of the books well. They could show Mark Hamil as Luke Skywalker training Leia's kids.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to heap any scorn on the state of Zap2it.com's quality reporting but 'he's saying that there will be no more Star Wars movies because fans are so critical' is not at all what Lucas was reported to say in the NYT article. He's saying that he himself is not going to be involved in the biz anymore. Odds of more star wars crap coming out = high
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved Star Wars and would have been perfectly happy to have the movie we only knew by that name be the only movie in the franchise
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not having Empire Strikes back and Return of the Jedi would be a big loss. Their effect on media of all forms is undeniable, and positive IMHO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could probably do without Return of the Jedi, but I agree it'd be blasphemous to raze Empire Strikes Back from the public consciousness.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you touch the original trilogy you heathens. A few ewoks don't spoil the broth.
I kind of want to hope that the way lucas is acting now and why he's giving up on his big movies all fundamentally boils down to him learning about the Plinkett reviews, sitting down, starting them up, and getting a god-sized punch straight to every part of his soul that was him trying to convince himself he did a good job with the prequels and it was just railed on by angry geeks who don't know nothin. And now his cognitive dissonance is broken, it still flaps around and talks but it's broke and on the inside he knows, he just knows
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd give up several toes (not any fingers, I type with them!) for the new series to be helmed by Joss Whedon and Bryan Fuller, with 100% complete creative control. Maybe with David Fury, Jane Espensen, and Steven Moffat as staff writers.
A geek can dream! But what am I kidding. It ain't never getting made.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just hope he watches the new Plinkett review for The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. He deserves what's coming to him!
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could see some pretty straightforwardly good things come out of lucasfilm — probably even good star wars series or movies — now that Lucas is effectively retiring from it. One way or another, the guy just has to accept that for whatever reason he got too weird and full of himself to not be mind-poison to whatever he threw his influence into. Four bad movies later, it seems like reform is impossible. He should just sit back and relax and concentrate on the good, and above all come to grips with the fact that he really has not been a good steward of his franchises. Absolute creative power ate him alive.
Case in point: there's pretty much no way that Red Tails is going to be a good movie. The best it can hope for is mediocre. Probably it will just be a bunch of wow-factor cgi spectacle airfights yet hamstrung by script, lines, and plot alike. I will eat a hat if it is a good movie.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No fair. You've been reading the reviews for Red Tails, haven't you. It's currently at 38% on RottenTomatoes.
Lucas said recently that there may be another Indy movie. I'm with John Casey (from Chuck) on this one . . . there will only ever be three Indy movies.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'd give up several toes (not any fingers, I type with them!) for the new series to be helmed by Joss Whedon and Bryan Fuller, with 100% complete creative control. Maybe with David Fury, Jane Espensen, and Steven Moffat as staff writers.
A geek can dream! But what am I kidding. It ain't never getting made.
I probably wouldn't watch a Star Wars directed or written by Joss Whedon. I like him, and I like the things he has created, but everything he touches ends up coming out sort of the same but different, and I don't think I'd appreciate his particular style applied to Star Wars.
If Jane Espensen was writing, I'd be more than interested.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: No fair. You've been reading the reviews for Red Tails, haven't you. It's currently at 38% on RottenTomatoes.
No, haven't been reading the reviews, but its too bad that I didn't think to make the claim before any reviews came out. I should have done so before the screenings and seen if I could have gotten something out of the deal!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aww, man! I was hoping it would be great, because I saw the first one when I was a kid and loved it and it's interesting history anyway. I really did hope the modern Lucas stink wouldn't get all over it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Lyrhawn, what is the reason The Old Republic does not interest you? I think it has a ton of potential. Sith and Jedi at their peak, both training new Force Users? I'd love that. I think it would be easier to do than trying to recast characters.
I suppose now that Mark Hamil is older they technically could do some of the books well. They could show Mark Hamil as Luke Skywalker training Leia's kids.
If your thing is lightsabers-a-whirling, then sure, it'd be fun, and don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good lightsaber duel. But I'm not particularly invested in any of the characters or story lines from that period. I never really got into much of the prequel stuff. The EU has a couple with real potential, but even then I've never really read it because most of it never really felt like Star Wars to me.
They'd really have to do a great job of setting up characters I care about, because I never really feel like that happened in the prequels.
I was never hooked like I was with the original trilogy. I'm willing to be hooked in the future, but for the moment nothing about it excites me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: ... there will only ever be three Indy movies.
Raiders, Crusade, and Skull.
Temple of Doom was much less entertaining than Skull. Its attempts to be gritty and edgy were focused on trying to gross out the audience rather than create real tension. The love interest character was pure annoying and had no arc. The depictions of Hindu culture were laughably racist. The only improvement from the first movie I can think of, unless you're into comic sidekick characters like Short Round, is that at least Temple of Doom had Indy actually do something in the climax, instead of stand tied to a pole and wait for a literal deus-ex-machina. Oh, and the scene with the snake in the forest is kind of funny.
Whereas Crystal Skull, while it suffered from the same deus-ex plot device climax from the first movie and had a lot of groan-worthy moments, did have a much better ensemble (yes, Shia is no Ford, but I didn't find him any more annoying than Markus Brody in Last Crusade, and Marion is a far better love interest than that whiner in Temple of Doom). The ridiculous swordfight and vine-swinging is both easier to swallow and more entertaining than the crap in Temple of Doom with the heart-grabbing rituals and the pointless and unimpressive minecart ride.
Not that I'm a big fan of Crystal Skull, but it is definitely a more watchable and enjoyable movie than Temple of Doom. My personal canon for the Indy franchise is just Raiders and Crusade, but if I were to endorse the idea that there were "only" three Indy movies, I'd put Skull over Temple any day.
Anyway, back on topic, since I'm sure these comments will otherwise derail the thread: Lucas is an inspired visionary, but not a talented storyteller, and the critics are right to bash the storytelling failings in the Star Wars prequels. I'm reluctant, however, to throw my weight in with the people who, say, bash Phantom Menace because of Jar Jar or podracing. I think much of the backlash was a case of subverted expectations, though RedLetterMedia's criticisms of the story itself remain valid. In addition, I want to distance myself from the anti-revisionist crowd who deride the Special Edition releases, because I don't think it's wrong for director to alter his art to better match his original vision. Lord knows I've often wanted to do the same with video games I've made. Yes, Han not shooting first doesn't make much logistical sense, and it deconstructs his "edgy" character, but if Lucas' vision for the character was to make him a tough, but fundamentally good-at-heart mercenary, then he ought to have the right to present him as such. Yes, stormtroopers on dewbacks are unnecessary additions, but 1) it doesn't ruin anything, 2) it adds some context to a formerly desolate and uninteresting scene, and 3) Lucas has the right to incorporate it into his art if he feels it better represents his original vision.
That said, Star Wars is a work of art by a large and skilled team of artists, and at its best, the performances and workmanship of all the contributors, not just Lucas, are fully prominent. At its worst, Lucas stifles the contributions of his fellow artists and contributors. This is why the prequels were a train wreck when Lucas was omnipotent, not allowing outside input regarding his vision.
However, it is a misrepresentation to say the original trilogy was saved from Lucas by more competent underlings. The production was plagued with misfortune and adversity from the start, and the actors mocked the material as a "kid's movie" and whatnot. Yes, they had to trim Lucas's proposed title crawl from six paragraphs to three, but Lucas's vision of using a title crawl in the first place was a bold (if not original) move that helped codify the legend of Star Wars. Between rain and dust on the Tatooine set, ILM's wasteful spending on shots that were ultimately useless, and financial difficulties, it is no small miracle that the film was even finished, much less the runaway blockbuster it became. The audacity and resolve of Lucas' vision was critical to the success of the movie, and I respect that vision as what makes Star Wars what it is, even if there are many ways the movies themselves could be improved (and not just the prequels, at that).
Re: Expanding The Old Republic into a movie/TV series. I haven't played The Old Republic, but I've watched my brother play it, and from what I've seen, it combines the memorable archetypal characters and plots from the original Star Wars trilogy with the grandiose settings and spectacular action of the prequels, while adding a uniquely Bioware take on the deeper political and moral issues at play in the story, making it more-or-less "the best of Star Wars." I think the setting makes more sense for an MMO than a movie, though, if only because the Great War in the game is all about being a conflict much larger than any single player, while providing context for the myriad quests and missions that don't greatly alter the galactic status quo while still providing compelling stories for the player to get attached to. In short, the setting works best for letting many players invest in their own stories, rather than a wide audience invest in a single character's story. But I'm sure a competent writer could get a story to work that would measure up to the previous movies in terms of scope while delivering a compelling narrative, so I'm not going to dismiss the idea as unfilmable.
quote:I've long said that what I want is a Rogue Squadron movie series or better yet, a TV series.
I like this idea. The space battles were always my favorite action sequences from the films, and the X-wing books are great at best and decent at worst. The show would need writers who know how to create a good narrative when the X-wings are idle in the docking bay, however, rather than rely on special effects. Seeing the space battles in The Clone Wars (the CG cartoon), I'm convinced it could be possible to pull off regular convincing photo-realistic space battles, since the models are largely static (no moving parts on a TIE fighter) and are very recyclable.
Re: Lucas-blaming-critics-for-killing-series. I actually do feel a bit sorry for Lucas, who took a lot more crap than he deserved from an overzealous fanbase that had its own conception of the Star Wars vision. When I try to analyze the prequel films with my nostalgia filter turned off, I find Phantom Menace unremarkable, but far from bad. Attack of the Clones is a drag at parts, and an eye-rollingly clumsy romance at others, but it has a few redeeming values (or maybe I was the only one on the planet who enjoyed Anakin and Obi-Wan's banter). Revenge of the Sith had a spark of goodness in it that counteracted the spark of dumbness residual from the previous movie, and what's left is the guilty-pleasure of the special effects and the enjoyably hammy performance of Palpatine. So all in all, the prequels aren't horrible. The only one I cringe at watching during Star Wars marathons is Attack of the Clones, and whatever stupid parts remain I enjoy making wisecracks at with my friends and family.
To those who would indignantly assert that we have no right to derive entertainment from this trash, I would cite the cultural impact of 2001: A Space Odyssey, a movie with sluggish pacing, incoherent narrative, forgettable characters, and an overly trippy ending that fails to resolve anything satisfactorily. And yet its influence is immeasurable and its cult following is substantial. Because beneath the flat acting and the good-for-their-time special effects, there lies a vision that resonates with people. Star Wars is a similar vision, one which defies the ineptitude and misfortunes of its creator(s) and invites the audience into a simpler and more elegant world of technology and religion, of heroes and villains, of good overcoming evil and doing so using flashy swords of light, telekinetic powers, and spaceships armed with friggin' laser beams. All to an awesome soundtrack.
For us, Star Wars is a common ground through which we can connect in a profound way, and a grand artistic vision that, despite being often clumsily-implemented, resonates through generations. I have no doubt that Star Wars will be remembered a cultural milestone for decades to come. But what do I know? I'm a borderline-autistic amateur video game programmer who once proclaimed in his creative writing class that he doesn't see what's so wrong with cheesiness in writing; that cheese can be quite tasty and is absolutely essential for many a delectable food.
As for the 3D re-releases, I'll probably skip them, unless I have a weekend with absolutely nothing to do, which is unlikely. I'll probably wait for the DVD of Red Tails and Netflix it, rather than watch it in theaters.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'common ground which we can connect in a profound way' and which 'resonates through generations' is pretty much entirely the original trilogy. If you just had the prequels there would be nothing of immeasurable influence, no cult following.
They're just bad movies. I don't think it should be controversial that they're bad, but, eh. I guess I'll frequently be surprised, like I occasionally am with movies that nobody should like (not star wars, but I know a few)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Episode 3 wasn't a bad film. In fact, I thought it was one of the best movies of that particular year. Sure, it's no Original Trilogy, but compared to Episodes 1 and 2 it's a masterpiece.
I think people are too critical. Honestly, look at Return of the Jedi. It has a LOT of problems, but we overlook them mostly because we love the franchise so much. The Ewoks were quite possibly the most retarded part of the film, just like Jar Jar's people make Episode 1 much worse than it could have been.
Fact is, in Return of the Jedi, there's a lot of plotholes and flaws that nobody focuses on anymore. But that's OK because we were all kids back then, which caused us to not care so much. Just like when Episode 1 came out, kids went to see it and they enjoyed the hell out of it, while the adults thought it was dog poo. I think that's an important difference. Star Wars was made for kids, and that hasn't changed, but we've all grown up since then so our views on all this stuff is different than if we were still ten.
Now, do I think the prequels could have been better? Yes. I think having a trilogy of films that focused more on the relationships rather than the politics would have made for a much better story. I think watching two films about Anakin and Obi-Wan running around the galaxy saving each other's lives, with the final film involving the betrayal, would be much better than what we got instead. Still, as stories go, I think the prequels get a worse rap than they deserve.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forgive plot holes in the original films, because then the dialogue and drama were enjoyable in a very silly way. Most of the drama and dialogue in the newer films are just cringe worthy and annoying.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
C3PO: I can't believe you're defending Crystal Skull. I just. . . .
Let me walk you through a few things. - Indy is an old man that can live through atomic blasts by hiding in a fridge. - His son is a champion sword-fighter that can swing on vines faster than a speeding jeep can drive (really?). - The Russians have the power to control people's minds. - There are strange crystal aliens in a spaceship waiting for. . . .
posted
I don't really get all the hate for Crystal Skull either. I've often defended it for being better than its reputation. There were certainly some elements of the film which treaded far too close to the silly (ie Shia Labeouf swinging from monkey vines), but I felt it successfully captured the essence of the character. And I don't get why people get so up in arms about the aliens. Temple of Doom was focused on a more supernatural element. Provided the film is set in the 50s when the paranoia about the bomb led to a boom in science fiction stories, the ending makes total sense within that context. It's really not so different from all the people being smote by the forces within the Ark at the end of Raiders.
I think a significant portion of the Indiana Jones character has been his attempt to maintain reason in a world which keeps throwing him into situations which attempt to shake his belief in a reasonable world. He doesn't believe in superstition or magic. Yet he faces the Ark of the Covenant, a pagan mystical artifact, the Holy Grail, and then an alien being (which is something often credited by more extreme "crackpot" historians as being the root of much of the more mystifying archaeological finds).
It wasn't perfect. There was no way a new Indiana Jones film could be perfect so many years after the originals had so much time to cement themselves and be idealized in pop culture consciousness. But it was enjoyable and, for me, was a nice nostalgia trip. I wasn't born in time to see the other Indiana Jones movies on the big screen, so I relished the opportunity to see Indy on the big screen regardless of the flaws.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of the problems I had with Indy 4: - Marion was there for no obvious reason, and she didn't do anything. - No one was shot. Part of the action / adventure of the other movies came from the fact that Indy would FIGHT the bad guys. This was very much toned down. - The action was TOO over the top. Sure, it had been over the top before. But this movie fled into cartoon territory. Beyond Labeouf's amazing Tarzan impression, we had people straddling two moving jeeps, and miraculous nuclear bomb escapes. - People dislike the aliens because Indy really only dealt with supernatural elements of the religious variety before. I know that Lucas thought that since it was set in the fifties, science fiction would be more appropriate. But this makes no sense. Indy already had its pulpy adventure trope going. Why suddenly change? - The mind control elements brought back the worst of Temple of Doom. - Redlettermedia does a better job than I can explaining, but there were MANY things recycled from previous films.
Frankly, the movie wasn't terrible. It was entertaining and had a handful of great scenes (until the ridiculousness of some of them broke disbelief). But it was a throwaway action movie with plot-holes Shia Labeouf could swing through on a vine. It wasn't a classic like the others (whether you include Temple or not in that category).
Some of us wanted another Raiders. And we're disappointed that we got another Episode I.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you guys want to see a real Indiana Jones movie, play the Uncharted series. It's basically Indiana Jones for modern audiences.
I thought the problem with Crystal Skull was simple. The first three films focused on supernatural elements from various religions, while Skull focused on aliens. I don't think Indiana Jones was ever meant to delve into the science fiction genre.
And if that doesn't convince you, let me give you the following list:
-The space between spaces -"nuking the fridge" has since become an internet meme that basically means you've completely screwed up the film -Shia -Shia swinging from vines -Shia sword fighting -the marriage scene -the TRIPLE crossing best friend -falling off a 300 foot waterfall and nobody gets so much as a bruise -The fake Russian accents -CGI gophers -Shia -High school kids racing government vehicles in the desert
There are just so many bad decisions in this film that it almost feels like a spoof of itself.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've said it before, I'll say it again: The only good Indiana Jones movie was Raiders.
The rest of them are varying degrees of suck, often with occasional redeeming factors (like Connery/Ford chemistry). Crystal Skull was better than Temple of Doom and worse than Last Crusade but none of those three were actually good.
I second what Jeff says about Uncharted being a better Indiana Jones than most of the Indy movies. The entire point of the Uncharted games is to be as close to "Playing a Movie" as they can possibly get.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lucas apparently got several scientists to sign some sort of document that says it IS possible for someone to survive a nuclear blast in that particular fridge, provided he doesn't break his neck when the fridge lands, and is actually able to open the door.
Personally, the only one I watch over and over is Last Crusade, though I like Raiders. I've only seen Temple twice and have no desire to see it again, but I would probably watch Crystal Skull if it was on TV. Just chill out and watch the movie. I can understand thinking "Ah but it could have been better!" but it's still watchable and enjoyable. You can nitpick ANYTHING to death if you REALLY want to. Or you can not.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lucas apparently got several scientists to sign some sort of document that says it IS possible for someone to survive a nuclear blast in that particular fridge, provided he doesn't break his neck when the fridge lands, and is actually able to open the door.
The fact that he had to do this at all should have been enough to tell him that it was probably a bad decision.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll confess: the point at which Crystal Skull lost me was at the warehouse, where we discovered that the powerful magnetism of the skull was going to be an occasional plot device but no one associated with the filming seemed to bother with, y'know, knowing how magnets behave.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Indy still trying to save the double/triple whatever crossing friend at the end was the part that made me say "oh man, whatever." And how many best friends that we've never heard of can Indy have?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than the Uncharted series of games, I thought that the new Tin Tin movie was one of the better movies in the Indiana Jones series.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Other than the Uncharted series of games, I thought that the new Tin Tin movie was one of the better movies in the Indiana Jones series.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Episode 3 wasn't a bad film. In fact, I thought it was one of the best movies of that particular year. Sure, it's no Original Trilogy, but compared to Episodes 1 and 2 it's a masterpiece.
posted
My big problem with the prequels is how quickly Anakin went from "I don't want my wife to die and I can't tell the Jedi about my illegal marriage, so I'll make a deal with Palpatine to save her" to "I'm going to murder a bunch of tiny children just because I was told to!"
Frankly, the "Oh, see, the Dark Side was dominating his destiny" explanation just doesn't cut it. He went -way- too quickly from morally compromised to total monster.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Episode 3 wasn't a bad film. In fact, I thought it was one of the best movies of that particular year. Sure, it's no Original Trilogy, but compared to Episodes 1 and 2 it's a masterpiece.
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: My big problem with the prequels is how quickly Anakin went from "I don't want my wife to die and I can't tell the Jedi about my illegal marriage, so I'll make a deal with Palpatine to save her" to "I'm going to murder a bunch of tiny children just because I was told to!"
Frankly, the "Oh, see, the Dark Side was dominating his destiny" explanation just doesn't cut it. He went -way- too quickly from morally compromised to total monster.
Exactly - it's not that I don't understand the idea of corruption, it's that corruption is a process, not a jump from "I'm on the white side of the line" to "I'm on the black side of the line." The line, especially in corruption, is a wide, wide thing. Sure, Anakin had already done some pretty sketchy things - but in very emotional state (when his mother had just been killed). While I still don't buy his betrayal of Mace, it made a bit of sense. But to go straight from that to killing children personally...no.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Exactly - it's not that I don't understand the idea of corruption, it's that corruption is a process, not a jump from "I'm on the white side of the line" to "I'm on the black side of the line."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
